<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_21_142228</id>
	<title>Android's Success a Threat To Free Software?</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1261406100000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Glyn Moody writes <i>"Two years after <a href="https://tech.slashdot.org/story/07/11/05/139210/Google-Announces-Open-Phone-Coalition-No-gPhone-Updated">its launch</a>, Google's Linux-based Android platform is finally <a href="http://venturebeat.com/2009/12/18/android-closes-in-on-iphone-ad-traffic-in-admobs-latest-report/">making its presence felt</a> in the world of smartphones.  <a href="http://www.androlib.com/appstats.aspx">Around 20,000 apps</a> have been written for it. Although well behind the iPhone's tally, that's significantly more than just a few months ago.  But there's a problem: few of these Android apps are free software.  Instead, we seem to be <a href="http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/success-googles-android-threat-free-software">witnessing the birth of a new hybrid stack</a> &mdash; open source underneath, and proprietary on top.  If, as many believe, mobile phones will become the main computing platform for most of the world, that could be a big problem for the health of the free software ecosystem.  So what, if anything, should the community be doing about it?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Glyn Moody writes " Two years after its launch , Google 's Linux-based Android platform is finally making its presence felt in the world of smartphones .
Around 20,000 apps have been written for it .
Although well behind the iPhone 's tally , that 's significantly more than just a few months ago .
But there 's a problem : few of these Android apps are free software .
Instead , we seem to be witnessing the birth of a new hybrid stack    open source underneath , and proprietary on top .
If , as many believe , mobile phones will become the main computing platform for most of the world , that could be a big problem for the health of the free software ecosystem .
So what , if anything , should the community be doing about it ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Glyn Moody writes "Two years after its launch, Google's Linux-based Android platform is finally making its presence felt in the world of smartphones.
Around 20,000 apps have been written for it.
Although well behind the iPhone's tally, that's significantly more than just a few months ago.
But there's a problem: few of these Android apps are free software.
Instead, we seem to be witnessing the birth of a new hybrid stack — open source underneath, and proprietary on top.
If, as many believe, mobile phones will become the main computing platform for most of the world, that could be a big problem for the health of the free software ecosystem.
So what, if anything, should the community be doing about it?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511932</id>
	<title>Re:The obvious answer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261410120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also "port libraries to the Android NDK". Which should be pretty easy, because it's Linux. Once you get them to build in the NDK you can use them in your Java programs over on the Android SDK side. A huge base of available Free Software libraries will likely encourage more development of Free Software on Android.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also " port libraries to the Android NDK " .
Which should be pretty easy , because it 's Linux .
Once you get them to build in the NDK you can use them in your Java programs over on the Android SDK side .
A huge base of available Free Software libraries will likely encourage more development of Free Software on Android .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also "port libraries to the Android NDK".
Which should be pretty easy, because it's Linux.
Once you get them to build in the NDK you can use them in your Java programs over on the Android SDK side.
A huge base of available Free Software libraries will likely encourage more development of Free Software on Android.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511884</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30515890</id>
	<title>Use the source, luke</title>
	<author>harlows\_monkeys</author>
	<datestamp>1261428660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> So what, if anything, should the community be doing about it?"</p></div><p>They should be getting out their Open Moko phones and having a conference call to discuss the problem.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So what , if anything , should the community be doing about it ?
" They should be getting out their Open Moko phones and having a conference call to discuss the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> So what, if anything, should the community be doing about it?
"They should be getting out their Open Moko phones and having a conference call to discuss the problem.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513042</id>
	<title>Sensationalism at its best...</title>
	<author>pongo000</author>
	<datestamp>1261415880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...of course, what else could be expected from Slashdot?</p><p>No, I doubt this is a "threat to free software." Author and Slashdot editor highly overestimate the impact of smartphone software on the vast universe of computing platforms for which F/OSS software is written.  Given the trivial aspect of most smartphone software, I seriously doubt the trends as mentioned by the author will even have a ripple effect on the larger picture.</p><p>I long for the days for real geek news on Slashdot, not the random rantings of a nobody who somehow sneak conjecture and fallacy by the editors on a daily basis.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...of course , what else could be expected from Slashdot ? No , I doubt this is a " threat to free software .
" Author and Slashdot editor highly overestimate the impact of smartphone software on the vast universe of computing platforms for which F/OSS software is written .
Given the trivial aspect of most smartphone software , I seriously doubt the trends as mentioned by the author will even have a ripple effect on the larger picture.I long for the days for real geek news on Slashdot , not the random rantings of a nobody who somehow sneak conjecture and fallacy by the editors on a daily basis .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...of course, what else could be expected from Slashdot?No, I doubt this is a "threat to free software.
" Author and Slashdot editor highly overestimate the impact of smartphone software on the vast universe of computing platforms for which F/OSS software is written.
Given the trivial aspect of most smartphone software, I seriously doubt the trends as mentioned by the author will even have a ripple effect on the larger picture.I long for the days for real geek news on Slashdot, not the random rantings of a nobody who somehow sneak conjecture and fallacy by the editors on a daily basis.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512560</id>
	<title>Re:Okay, I'll be the one to say it...</title>
	<author>vipw</author>
	<datestamp>1261413720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The N900 is very expensive. Android phones may not be very cheap yet, but it's improving.</p><p>Maemo may be nice, but it doesn't have a dozen Asian ODMs making phones that run it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The N900 is very expensive .
Android phones may not be very cheap yet , but it 's improving.Maemo may be nice , but it does n't have a dozen Asian ODMs making phones that run it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The N900 is very expensive.
Android phones may not be very cheap yet, but it's improving.Maemo may be nice, but it doesn't have a dozen Asian ODMs making phones that run it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30514034</id>
	<title>Re:Okay, I'll be the one to say it...</title>
	<author>Captain Spam</author>
	<datestamp>1261420200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So... um... what's a fully-open <i>STACK</i> got to do with fully-open <i>APPS</i> on the device?  Anyone can still write a proprietary, closed-source app on the N900, right?  I mean, even on a fully-open Linux desktop, you can still very well have proprietary, not-open, binary-blob applications on it.  In the same manner, anyone can write a fully-open application for Windows if they so desire.</p><p>Or can they NOT do so on the N900, and the lack of this choice, for better or worse, is what's keeping developers away from it?  Some people just plain and simply don't want the source to their applications released.</p><p>(DISCLAIMER: Author of a fully-open Android app currently on the Marketplace for free)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So... um... what 's a fully-open STACK got to do with fully-open APPS on the device ?
Anyone can still write a proprietary , closed-source app on the N900 , right ?
I mean , even on a fully-open Linux desktop , you can still very well have proprietary , not-open , binary-blob applications on it .
In the same manner , anyone can write a fully-open application for Windows if they so desire.Or can they NOT do so on the N900 , and the lack of this choice , for better or worse , is what 's keeping developers away from it ?
Some people just plain and simply do n't want the source to their applications released .
( DISCLAIMER : Author of a fully-open Android app currently on the Marketplace for free )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So... um... what's a fully-open STACK got to do with fully-open APPS on the device?
Anyone can still write a proprietary, closed-source app on the N900, right?
I mean, even on a fully-open Linux desktop, you can still very well have proprietary, not-open, binary-blob applications on it.
In the same manner, anyone can write a fully-open application for Windows if they so desire.Or can they NOT do so on the N900, and the lack of this choice, for better or worse, is what's keeping developers away from it?
Some people just plain and simply don't want the source to their applications released.
(DISCLAIMER: Author of a fully-open Android app currently on the Marketplace for free)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512342</id>
	<title>mU0d up</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261412640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>briilia8t plan</htmltext>
<tokenext>briilia8t plan</tokentext>
<sentencetext>briilia8t plan</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30514666</id>
	<title>Maybe the commune should...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261423020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...get a job?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...get a job ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...get a job?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30516302</id>
	<title>hybrid approach will work</title>
	<author>recharged95</author>
	<datestamp>1261387380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Having FOSS at the bottom will fix the one thing that companies always get into trouble for: cornering a market.
<br>
<br>
As with Android, being FOSS <i>lowers the cost of entry and keeps it low</i>. This prevents companies from inflating the value of their product, which in turn they get sucked into becoming a monopoly by inflating the cost of entry into their "turf". Lowering the cost of entry will either force the big, more established players a choice of buying out a smaller player (usually good for the owner, maybe not for the customers), or losing market share (competition is good). And of course this is the internet, so these situations can happen overnight, which <i>is</i> a good thing.
<br>
<br>
As long as Google keeps Android FOSS and yearly updated, this model will become the de facto standard of selling apps.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Having FOSS at the bottom will fix the one thing that companies always get into trouble for : cornering a market .
As with Android , being FOSS lowers the cost of entry and keeps it low .
This prevents companies from inflating the value of their product , which in turn they get sucked into becoming a monopoly by inflating the cost of entry into their " turf " .
Lowering the cost of entry will either force the big , more established players a choice of buying out a smaller player ( usually good for the owner , maybe not for the customers ) , or losing market share ( competition is good ) .
And of course this is the internet , so these situations can happen overnight , which is a good thing .
As long as Google keeps Android FOSS and yearly updated , this model will become the de facto standard of selling apps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having FOSS at the bottom will fix the one thing that companies always get into trouble for: cornering a market.
As with Android, being FOSS lowers the cost of entry and keeps it low.
This prevents companies from inflating the value of their product, which in turn they get sucked into becoming a monopoly by inflating the cost of entry into their "turf".
Lowering the cost of entry will either force the big, more established players a choice of buying out a smaller player (usually good for the owner, maybe not for the customers), or losing market share (competition is good).
And of course this is the internet, so these situations can happen overnight, which is a good thing.
As long as Google keeps Android FOSS and yearly updated, this model will become the de facto standard of selling apps.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30515832</id>
	<title>Call it GNU/Android</title>
	<author>harlows\_monkeys</author>
	<datestamp>1261428360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe if we start calling it GNU/Android instead of just Android, people will realize they should be writing Free software for it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe if we start calling it GNU/Android instead of just Android , people will realize they should be writing Free software for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe if we start calling it GNU/Android instead of just Android, people will realize they should be writing Free software for it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512026</id>
	<title>Celebrating</title>
	<author>odin84gk</author>
	<datestamp>1261410660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Celebrating. Now we have a program that we can point to, showing how an open-source program can be better than their closed counterparts.</p><p>Also, we need to be wary. If Android fails (gets a ton of viruses and spyware), it could be a large black mark on the open-source community.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Celebrating .
Now we have a program that we can point to , showing how an open-source program can be better than their closed counterparts.Also , we need to be wary .
If Android fails ( gets a ton of viruses and spyware ) , it could be a large black mark on the open-source community .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Celebrating.
Now we have a program that we can point to, showing how an open-source program can be better than their closed counterparts.Also, we need to be wary.
If Android fails (gets a ton of viruses and spyware), it could be a large black mark on the open-source community.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512242</id>
	<title>Premise is one giant troll</title>
	<author>Enderandrew</author>
	<datestamp>1261412040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would you rather the entire phone system remain proprietary?</p><p>Is this really a terrible situation that atleast the phone's core OS is FOSS, and that there is a nice framework for open development?</p><p>This is a good thing.</p><p>Please don't bother insisting that you're either 100\% "free" or not at all. True freedom is choice. Telling people that they shouldn't have the freedom to run proprietary apps on top of FOSS under-pinnings really doesn't sound like freedom to me.</p><p>Linux is making more and more in-roads. I'd rather avoid the zealotry that gives FOSS a bad name. It really is counter-productive. If you care about FOSS and truly want to advocate for the growth and adoption of FOSS, then please tone it down just a little bit. Instead of attacking companies like Google which really push FOSS (releasing MySQL and Wine patches, paying for Summer of Code, constantly opening up the source to a number of projects, creating Android, creating Chrome browser, creating Chrome OS, funding Mozilla, etc), how about we support them.</p><p>This was the EXACT same argument with Firefox. Stallman and the FSF attacked Firefox because it allowed proprietary extensions. I wouldn't be shocked if the majority of Firefox extensions are proprietary. He encouraged people to boycott Firefox. Doing so would only benefit IE. Adopting Firefox has done wonders for FOSS. It was a gateway to FOSS for many people who had never heard of it before, or would never consider it before.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would you rather the entire phone system remain proprietary ? Is this really a terrible situation that atleast the phone 's core OS is FOSS , and that there is a nice framework for open development ? This is a good thing.Please do n't bother insisting that you 're either 100 \ % " free " or not at all .
True freedom is choice .
Telling people that they should n't have the freedom to run proprietary apps on top of FOSS under-pinnings really does n't sound like freedom to me.Linux is making more and more in-roads .
I 'd rather avoid the zealotry that gives FOSS a bad name .
It really is counter-productive .
If you care about FOSS and truly want to advocate for the growth and adoption of FOSS , then please tone it down just a little bit .
Instead of attacking companies like Google which really push FOSS ( releasing MySQL and Wine patches , paying for Summer of Code , constantly opening up the source to a number of projects , creating Android , creating Chrome browser , creating Chrome OS , funding Mozilla , etc ) , how about we support them.This was the EXACT same argument with Firefox .
Stallman and the FSF attacked Firefox because it allowed proprietary extensions .
I would n't be shocked if the majority of Firefox extensions are proprietary .
He encouraged people to boycott Firefox .
Doing so would only benefit IE .
Adopting Firefox has done wonders for FOSS .
It was a gateway to FOSS for many people who had never heard of it before , or would never consider it before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would you rather the entire phone system remain proprietary?Is this really a terrible situation that atleast the phone's core OS is FOSS, and that there is a nice framework for open development?This is a good thing.Please don't bother insisting that you're either 100\% "free" or not at all.
True freedom is choice.
Telling people that they shouldn't have the freedom to run proprietary apps on top of FOSS under-pinnings really doesn't sound like freedom to me.Linux is making more and more in-roads.
I'd rather avoid the zealotry that gives FOSS a bad name.
It really is counter-productive.
If you care about FOSS and truly want to advocate for the growth and adoption of FOSS, then please tone it down just a little bit.
Instead of attacking companies like Google which really push FOSS (releasing MySQL and Wine patches, paying for Summer of Code, constantly opening up the source to a number of projects, creating Android, creating Chrome browser, creating Chrome OS, funding Mozilla, etc), how about we support them.This was the EXACT same argument with Firefox.
Stallman and the FSF attacked Firefox because it allowed proprietary extensions.
I wouldn't be shocked if the majority of Firefox extensions are proprietary.
He encouraged people to boycott Firefox.
Doing so would only benefit IE.
Adopting Firefox has done wonders for FOSS.
It was a gateway to FOSS for many people who had never heard of it before, or would never consider it before.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512102</id>
	<title>Re:Okay, I'll be the one to say it...</title>
	<author>petes\_PoV</author>
	<datestamp>1261411080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem won't be writing the apps. The problem will be who is the "gatekeeper" which allows these to be loaded and executed on the phone. At present, it seems to me that the network operators are the ones who determine what can and cannot be run - not because of the access to the <b>phone</b> but by allowing or disallowing access to their network. That's what they're trying to protect - not the phone hardware.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem wo n't be writing the apps .
The problem will be who is the " gatekeeper " which allows these to be loaded and executed on the phone .
At present , it seems to me that the network operators are the ones who determine what can and can not be run - not because of the access to the phone but by allowing or disallowing access to their network .
That 's what they 're trying to protect - not the phone hardware .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem won't be writing the apps.
The problem will be who is the "gatekeeper" which allows these to be loaded and executed on the phone.
At present, it seems to me that the network operators are the ones who determine what can and cannot be run - not because of the access to the phone but by allowing or disallowing access to their network.
That's what they're trying to protect - not the phone hardware.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512500</id>
	<title>Re:This is silly</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1261413420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the freedom to run non-free software counts as a freedom, and software which actively prevents you from exercising it is less free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the freedom to run non-free software counts as a freedom , and software which actively prevents you from exercising it is less free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the freedom to run non-free software counts as a freedom, and software which actively prevents you from exercising it is less free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30553310</id>
	<title>Re:Actually, summary is wrong.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261747140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>lol<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.aspx</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>lol .aspx</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lol .aspx</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512772</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261414800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All programmers should be barred from collecting income. Generation of new software should strictly be a charitable excerise and programmers should be expected, like monks or priests, to forgo material posessions and live off the charity of others.  Many are already celebate anyway...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All programmers should be barred from collecting income .
Generation of new software should strictly be a charitable excerise and programmers should be expected , like monks or priests , to forgo material posessions and live off the charity of others .
Many are already celebate anyway.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All programmers should be barred from collecting income.
Generation of new software should strictly be a charitable excerise and programmers should be expected, like monks or priests, to forgo material posessions and live off the charity of others.
Many are already celebate anyway...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512606</id>
	<title>The birth?</title>
	<author>tthomas48</author>
	<datestamp>1261413960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"witnessing the birth of a new hybrid stack -- open source underneath, and proprietary on top"</p><p>I believe we already have this stack and call it the internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" witnessing the birth of a new hybrid stack -- open source underneath , and proprietary on top " I believe we already have this stack and call it the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"witnessing the birth of a new hybrid stack -- open source underneath, and proprietary on top"I believe we already have this stack and call it the internet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30514362</id>
	<title>n900</title>
	<author>js\_sebastian</author>
	<datestamp>1261421640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Or support the N900 instead of the Android.  It's not a totally open stack, but it's much more so than Android, and the apps also tend to be direct ports of Linux OSS.  And the whole thing is less locked down to begin with.</p></div><p>I'm writing from one.... the "app stores" are just debian repositories, it's really an open platform... and the GUI is awesome...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or support the N900 instead of the Android .
It 's not a totally open stack , but it 's much more so than Android , and the apps also tend to be direct ports of Linux OSS .
And the whole thing is less locked down to begin with.I 'm writing from one.... the " app stores " are just debian repositories , it 's really an open platform... and the GUI is awesome.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or support the N900 instead of the Android.
It's not a totally open stack, but it's much more so than Android, and the apps also tend to be direct ports of Linux OSS.
And the whole thing is less locked down to begin with.I'm writing from one.... the "app stores" are just debian repositories, it's really an open platform... and the GUI is awesome...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513260</id>
	<title>Re:Okay, I'll be the one to say it...</title>
	<author>GooberToo</author>
	<datestamp>1261416780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The big difference is Linux is free. Android is not.</p> </div><p>Correction. Linux and Android are both free.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The big difference is Linux is free .
Android is not .
Correction. Linux and Android are both free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The big difference is Linux is free.
Android is not.
Correction. Linux and Android are both free.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511950</id>
	<title>How is this different from the status quo?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261410240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a disconnect between open source proponents and the way open source software is actually used.</p><p>The reason that Linux/Apache/MySQL/PHP is so successful is that it eliminates a cost and provides a standardized platform that is easy to maintain and replicate.</p><p>There are billions of dollars' worth of proprietary software running on top of that stack.</p><p>Part of the reason for the complete and utter failure of Affero GPL is that it gives an implicit right of audit and can result in what the UK calls an "Anton Pillar" order which could literally result in a team of bailiffs seizing and searching your servers in case you modified some AGPL software.</p><p>The point is, that while there is public consensus on the use of open source for infrastructure, there is no similar enthusiasm for viral obligations nor is there any interest in opening up the value-add/secret sauce on the top of the stack.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a disconnect between open source proponents and the way open source software is actually used.The reason that Linux/Apache/MySQL/PHP is so successful is that it eliminates a cost and provides a standardized platform that is easy to maintain and replicate.There are billions of dollars ' worth of proprietary software running on top of that stack.Part of the reason for the complete and utter failure of Affero GPL is that it gives an implicit right of audit and can result in what the UK calls an " Anton Pillar " order which could literally result in a team of bailiffs seizing and searching your servers in case you modified some AGPL software.The point is , that while there is public consensus on the use of open source for infrastructure , there is no similar enthusiasm for viral obligations nor is there any interest in opening up the value-add/secret sauce on the top of the stack .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a disconnect between open source proponents and the way open source software is actually used.The reason that Linux/Apache/MySQL/PHP is so successful is that it eliminates a cost and provides a standardized platform that is easy to maintain and replicate.There are billions of dollars' worth of proprietary software running on top of that stack.Part of the reason for the complete and utter failure of Affero GPL is that it gives an implicit right of audit and can result in what the UK calls an "Anton Pillar" order which could literally result in a team of bailiffs seizing and searching your servers in case you modified some AGPL software.The point is, that while there is public consensus on the use of open source for infrastructure, there is no similar enthusiasm for viral obligations nor is there any interest in opening up the value-add/secret sauce on the top of the stack.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513018</id>
	<title>Re:Okay, I'll be the one to say it...</title>
	<author>GooberToo</author>
	<datestamp>1261415760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The drive is there because the "promise" of riches is there.</p> </div><p>Nothing could be farther from the truth. I have no idea why some people keep pushing this lie. Either you're completely uninformed or are pushing a known lie. Simple fact is, no developer is chasing the iPhone or Android with "promises of riches." None. Most developers simply hope to make a modest living while being their own boss. In other words, such a statement is completely without merit. To suggest these developers are chasing riches implies people who actually work for a company are totally fucking nuts trying to make it rich. Of course, such a statement is even dumber.</p><p>And with so many well publicized stories of the fact NO ONE is making a living on Android - NO ONE - only a complete fucking idiot believes there are riches to be had there. So please stop pushing this well established lie. Its not true. Period. Because of this reason, many well established mobile device developers have walked away from Android - because piracy is killing it.</p><p>Furthermore, the entire article is complete horse shit. The entire purpose of free software is entirely to allow people to make a living off of it. So many nuts cases completely ignore this fact. From the start, the purpose is to create software which can be freely received as a shared development effort. <b>In exchange, these developers are to making a living off of additional applications, customizations, and support services</b>. In this case, as few applications are open for extended services, etc., proprietary applications are built on top of a free base. IMOHO, is the exact intention of open source licenses and software; in this case, Android. Everyone benefits and hopefully some can even scratch out a living by being their own boss and enjoying what they do.</p><p>And by me saying, "everyone benefits", I mean exactly that. Everyone can improve Android without a high barrier for entry. Everyone can develop applications without a high barrier for entry. Everyone can make money without a high barrier of entry, which in turn continues the commercial drive on everything I previously mentioned. Everyone wins. And if some developers are able to scratch out a living, or better, then free software has worked exactly as intended, allowing for developers, users, and companies to all benefit while continuing to directly benefit free software and all that use it. That's entirely the point of free software!!!!</p><p>Contrary to the idiots who believe software should be free and no one should making a living, always reviling themselves to be complete hypocrites, the reality is, free software exists precisely to generate revenues to allow continued development on free software. For Android, commercial applications are exactly the gateway to allow continued free development on Android.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The drive is there because the " promise " of riches is there .
Nothing could be farther from the truth .
I have no idea why some people keep pushing this lie .
Either you 're completely uninformed or are pushing a known lie .
Simple fact is , no developer is chasing the iPhone or Android with " promises of riches .
" None .
Most developers simply hope to make a modest living while being their own boss .
In other words , such a statement is completely without merit .
To suggest these developers are chasing riches implies people who actually work for a company are totally fucking nuts trying to make it rich .
Of course , such a statement is even dumber.And with so many well publicized stories of the fact NO ONE is making a living on Android - NO ONE - only a complete fucking idiot believes there are riches to be had there .
So please stop pushing this well established lie .
Its not true .
Period. Because of this reason , many well established mobile device developers have walked away from Android - because piracy is killing it.Furthermore , the entire article is complete horse shit .
The entire purpose of free software is entirely to allow people to make a living off of it .
So many nuts cases completely ignore this fact .
From the start , the purpose is to create software which can be freely received as a shared development effort .
In exchange , these developers are to making a living off of additional applications , customizations , and support services .
In this case , as few applications are open for extended services , etc. , proprietary applications are built on top of a free base .
IMOHO , is the exact intention of open source licenses and software ; in this case , Android .
Everyone benefits and hopefully some can even scratch out a living by being their own boss and enjoying what they do.And by me saying , " everyone benefits " , I mean exactly that .
Everyone can improve Android without a high barrier for entry .
Everyone can develop applications without a high barrier for entry .
Everyone can make money without a high barrier of entry , which in turn continues the commercial drive on everything I previously mentioned .
Everyone wins .
And if some developers are able to scratch out a living , or better , then free software has worked exactly as intended , allowing for developers , users , and companies to all benefit while continuing to directly benefit free software and all that use it .
That 's entirely the point of free software ! ! !
! Contrary to the idiots who believe software should be free and no one should making a living , always reviling themselves to be complete hypocrites , the reality is , free software exists precisely to generate revenues to allow continued development on free software .
For Android , commercial applications are exactly the gateway to allow continued free development on Android .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The drive is there because the "promise" of riches is there.
Nothing could be farther from the truth.
I have no idea why some people keep pushing this lie.
Either you're completely uninformed or are pushing a known lie.
Simple fact is, no developer is chasing the iPhone or Android with "promises of riches.
" None.
Most developers simply hope to make a modest living while being their own boss.
In other words, such a statement is completely without merit.
To suggest these developers are chasing riches implies people who actually work for a company are totally fucking nuts trying to make it rich.
Of course, such a statement is even dumber.And with so many well publicized stories of the fact NO ONE is making a living on Android - NO ONE - only a complete fucking idiot believes there are riches to be had there.
So please stop pushing this well established lie.
Its not true.
Period. Because of this reason, many well established mobile device developers have walked away from Android - because piracy is killing it.Furthermore, the entire article is complete horse shit.
The entire purpose of free software is entirely to allow people to make a living off of it.
So many nuts cases completely ignore this fact.
From the start, the purpose is to create software which can be freely received as a shared development effort.
In exchange, these developers are to making a living off of additional applications, customizations, and support services.
In this case, as few applications are open for extended services, etc., proprietary applications are built on top of a free base.
IMOHO, is the exact intention of open source licenses and software; in this case, Android.
Everyone benefits and hopefully some can even scratch out a living by being their own boss and enjoying what they do.And by me saying, "everyone benefits", I mean exactly that.
Everyone can improve Android without a high barrier for entry.
Everyone can develop applications without a high barrier for entry.
Everyone can make money without a high barrier of entry, which in turn continues the commercial drive on everything I previously mentioned.
Everyone wins.
And if some developers are able to scratch out a living, or better, then free software has worked exactly as intended, allowing for developers, users, and companies to all benefit while continuing to directly benefit free software and all that use it.
That's entirely the point of free software!!!
!Contrary to the idiots who believe software should be free and no one should making a living, always reviling themselves to be complete hypocrites, the reality is, free software exists precisely to generate revenues to allow continued development on free software.
For Android, commercial applications are exactly the gateway to allow continued free development on Android.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511884</id>
	<title>The obvious answer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261409880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So what, if anything, should the community be doing about it?</p></div></blockquote><p>Gonna go out on a limb here and say "Develop apps for Android."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So what , if anything , should the community be doing about it ? Gon na go out on a limb here and say " Develop apps for Android .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what, if anything, should the community be doing about it?Gonna go out on a limb here and say "Develop apps for Android.
"
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512136</id>
	<title>I'm so sick of "not free enough"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261411320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Listen, nobody is going to write commercial quality games and release them for free.</p><p>That's what this is about.  I have a Droid, and the games are the only thing in the Market costing any money.</p><p>The Droid does more than the iPhone out of the box, and it does it all free and Free.  Quit your damn bitching.</p><p>For fuck sakes, maybe Google could pay out to some developers for some free games, to enhance the sales pitch, but short of that - it's not happening.</p><p>Every iteration of the playstation has had an official 'free' development environment for homebrew.  And yet, all PSX, PS2, and PS3 software out there is not free.  How can this be?  Where are all the quality Free titles on XBox marketplace, or Wii-ware?  HOW CAN THIS BE!  How could Valve not release Left 4 Dead 2 for free, don't they know that they owe the whole entire world!</p><p>Articles like this are why slashdot is irrelevant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Listen , nobody is going to write commercial quality games and release them for free.That 's what this is about .
I have a Droid , and the games are the only thing in the Market costing any money.The Droid does more than the iPhone out of the box , and it does it all free and Free .
Quit your damn bitching.For fuck sakes , maybe Google could pay out to some developers for some free games , to enhance the sales pitch , but short of that - it 's not happening.Every iteration of the playstation has had an official 'free ' development environment for homebrew .
And yet , all PSX , PS2 , and PS3 software out there is not free .
How can this be ?
Where are all the quality Free titles on XBox marketplace , or Wii-ware ?
HOW CAN THIS BE !
How could Valve not release Left 4 Dead 2 for free , do n't they know that they owe the whole entire world ! Articles like this are why slashdot is irrelevant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Listen, nobody is going to write commercial quality games and release them for free.That's what this is about.
I have a Droid, and the games are the only thing in the Market costing any money.The Droid does more than the iPhone out of the box, and it does it all free and Free.
Quit your damn bitching.For fuck sakes, maybe Google could pay out to some developers for some free games, to enhance the sales pitch, but short of that - it's not happening.Every iteration of the playstation has had an official 'free' development environment for homebrew.
And yet, all PSX, PS2, and PS3 software out there is not free.
How can this be?
Where are all the quality Free titles on XBox marketplace, or Wii-ware?
HOW CAN THIS BE!
How could Valve not release Left 4 Dead 2 for free, don't they know that they owe the whole entire world!Articles like this are why slashdot is irrelevant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511870</id>
	<title>nothing, of course!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261409820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FP by the way, biatches!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FP by the way , biatches !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FP by the way, biatches!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513086</id>
	<title>Doe the OP know anything about OS?</title>
	<author>ChronoFish</author>
	<datestamp>1261416060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"...we seem to be witnessing the birth of a new hybrid stack &mdash; open source underneath, and proprietary on top. If, as many believe, mobile phones will become the main computing platform for most of the world, that could be a big problem for the health of the free software ecosystem...."</p><p>This has been going on for years and is one of the main drivers of OS.  Many - not all - companies know the importance of contributing to source, making fixes public, and are even willing to give charitable contributions.  If they can't *use* OS in their products - or can't modify OS for their own needs, then OS would become a "cute" offshoot of program development.</p><p>What we are really witnessing is a whole new generation of tech reporters who must now come to terms with what "open source" really is.  It's a constant, tiring, education process.....</p><p>-CF</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...we seem to be witnessing the birth of a new hybrid stack    open source underneath , and proprietary on top .
If , as many believe , mobile phones will become the main computing platform for most of the world , that could be a big problem for the health of the free software ecosystem.... " This has been going on for years and is one of the main drivers of OS .
Many - not all - companies know the importance of contributing to source , making fixes public , and are even willing to give charitable contributions .
If they ca n't * use * OS in their products - or ca n't modify OS for their own needs , then OS would become a " cute " offshoot of program development.What we are really witnessing is a whole new generation of tech reporters who must now come to terms with what " open source " really is .
It 's a constant , tiring , education process.....-CF</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...we seem to be witnessing the birth of a new hybrid stack — open source underneath, and proprietary on top.
If, as many believe, mobile phones will become the main computing platform for most of the world, that could be a big problem for the health of the free software ecosystem...."This has been going on for years and is one of the main drivers of OS.
Many - not all - companies know the importance of contributing to source, making fixes public, and are even willing to give charitable contributions.
If they can't *use* OS in their products - or can't modify OS for their own needs, then OS would become a "cute" offshoot of program development.What we are really witnessing is a whole new generation of tech reporters who must now come to terms with what "open source" really is.
It's a constant, tiring, education process.....-CF</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513452</id>
	<title>Re:Okay, I'll be the one to say it...</title>
	<author>ubersoldat2k7</author>
	<datestamp>1261417740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Phones and tablets and netbooks and...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Phones and tablets and netbooks and.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Phones and tablets and netbooks and...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512442</id>
	<title>Quality and consistency.</title>
	<author>geekmux</author>
	<datestamp>1261413180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm glad that there is at least some competition out there to drive innovation, but perhaps the one thing that might just be dying here is software that is given away for free?  There is a new generation of programmers and developers out there that are brought into this market with the idea of actually <i>making money</i> for their efforts.  Think 10 or 15 years ago when you appreciated getting your name (or 'nym) out there as credit for free software and not much more.  No offense, but the debt-riddled entitlement generation has to be able to pay the bills.</p><p>I'm not faulting anyone for that, but just don't sit back here and act all "shocky" when someone wants to actually charge money for their efforts.  Capitalism done right isn't a bad thing.  It got the market where it is today.  Besides, as least it's the base layer that is open source with proprietary apps on top, and not the other way around.</p><p>And please, let's drop this whole mentality of the "phone" being the platform of the future.  It's not a "phone" anymore, it's damn computer that happens to have a wireless network connection built in.  Stop calling it a "phone" already.  It stopped being a "phone" about 5 years, three browsers, two touch screens, 512MB,400mhz, and 75,000 apps ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm glad that there is at least some competition out there to drive innovation , but perhaps the one thing that might just be dying here is software that is given away for free ?
There is a new generation of programmers and developers out there that are brought into this market with the idea of actually making money for their efforts .
Think 10 or 15 years ago when you appreciated getting your name ( or 'nym ) out there as credit for free software and not much more .
No offense , but the debt-riddled entitlement generation has to be able to pay the bills.I 'm not faulting anyone for that , but just do n't sit back here and act all " shocky " when someone wants to actually charge money for their efforts .
Capitalism done right is n't a bad thing .
It got the market where it is today .
Besides , as least it 's the base layer that is open source with proprietary apps on top , and not the other way around.And please , let 's drop this whole mentality of the " phone " being the platform of the future .
It 's not a " phone " anymore , it 's damn computer that happens to have a wireless network connection built in .
Stop calling it a " phone " already .
It stopped being a " phone " about 5 years , three browsers , two touch screens , 512MB,400mhz , and 75,000 apps ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm glad that there is at least some competition out there to drive innovation, but perhaps the one thing that might just be dying here is software that is given away for free?
There is a new generation of programmers and developers out there that are brought into this market with the idea of actually making money for their efforts.
Think 10 or 15 years ago when you appreciated getting your name (or 'nym) out there as credit for free software and not much more.
No offense, but the debt-riddled entitlement generation has to be able to pay the bills.I'm not faulting anyone for that, but just don't sit back here and act all "shocky" when someone wants to actually charge money for their efforts.
Capitalism done right isn't a bad thing.
It got the market where it is today.
Besides, as least it's the base layer that is open source with proprietary apps on top, and not the other way around.And please, let's drop this whole mentality of the "phone" being the platform of the future.
It's not a "phone" anymore, it's damn computer that happens to have a wireless network connection built in.
Stop calling it a "phone" already.
It stopped being a "phone" about 5 years, three browsers, two touch screens, 512MB,400mhz, and 75,000 apps ago.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511914</id>
	<title>Fixing it</title>
	<author>nahdude812</author>
	<datestamp>1261410000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So what, if anything, should the community be doing about it?</p></div></blockquote><p>Fix it.  Write equivalent open source apps.  There's nothing wrong (in my book) with running proprietary on top of open source (so long as this isn't a violation of the license).  Value for the platform is value for the platform.</p><p>If the platform succeeds, the open source equivalents will be there eventually.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So what , if anything , should the community be doing about it ? Fix it .
Write equivalent open source apps .
There 's nothing wrong ( in my book ) with running proprietary on top of open source ( so long as this is n't a violation of the license ) .
Value for the platform is value for the platform.If the platform succeeds , the open source equivalents will be there eventually .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what, if anything, should the community be doing about it?Fix it.
Write equivalent open source apps.
There's nothing wrong (in my book) with running proprietary on top of open source (so long as this isn't a violation of the license).
Value for the platform is value for the platform.If the platform succeeds, the open source equivalents will be there eventually.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30515476</id>
	<title>Somebody has to get paid</title>
	<author>dave562</author>
	<datestamp>1261426500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It doesn't matter if the developer is using Visual Studio and forking over cash to Microsoft, or if they are using Eclipse and writing "open source" code.  Development hours cost money.  Just because the tools are free doesn't mean that the end product is.  Just because someone else "could" develop the same thing doesn't mean that they will.  There is value in someone else doing the work.</p><p>There is a perception among too many people that "open source" = cheap/free.  At the end of the day, people want to get paid for their work.  Beyond that, there are more people who want a solution that works than there are people with the talent, skills or inclination to develop their own solution.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't matter if the developer is using Visual Studio and forking over cash to Microsoft , or if they are using Eclipse and writing " open source " code .
Development hours cost money .
Just because the tools are free does n't mean that the end product is .
Just because someone else " could " develop the same thing does n't mean that they will .
There is value in someone else doing the work.There is a perception among too many people that " open source " = cheap/free .
At the end of the day , people want to get paid for their work .
Beyond that , there are more people who want a solution that works than there are people with the talent , skills or inclination to develop their own solution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't matter if the developer is using Visual Studio and forking over cash to Microsoft, or if they are using Eclipse and writing "open source" code.
Development hours cost money.
Just because the tools are free doesn't mean that the end product is.
Just because someone else "could" develop the same thing doesn't mean that they will.
There is value in someone else doing the work.There is a perception among too many people that "open source" = cheap/free.
At the end of the day, people want to get paid for their work.
Beyond that, there are more people who want a solution that works than there are people with the talent, skills or inclination to develop their own solution.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512542</id>
	<title>I do see a problem here, but it isn't Android</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261413600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is a distinct threat to FOSS in smartphones; but it isn't android, or even the largely proprietary apps running on top of it. Heck, on the software side, having a FOSS OS as a rapidly rising contender is at least as good, if not better, than things have ever been on the PC side. Especially since, if the underlying OS is FOSS, and that is what commercial applications are developed on, it is quite easy to compromise only as much as needed in order to run particular proprietary applications(compare to say, the situation with Linux, where most proprietary apps are for windows, so if you need to use just one, you either have to pray it works with Wine, or dual boot, or virtualize.) If both proprietary and FOSS apps are running on a FOSS base, you can freely pick and chose.<br> <br>

The problem is the hardware, and the carriers.<br> <br>

With PCs, there is nothing(aside from certain driver issues) stopping you from running whatever you want on your hardware. And, with a bit of informed shopping, you can usually get a desirable hardware configuration without too much trouble. With phones, though, the manufacturers and carriers have their hooks into the process much more deeply. While the implementations have often been pretty weak, allowing a variety of hacks, proprietary components explicitly targeted against the user are ubiquitous(SIM locks, anyone?) and even the FOSS components are apt to be more or less tivoized on most handsets that you can actually buy.<br> <br>

I'd say that smartphone software is shaping up to be freer than PC software; but smartphone hardware is far closer to dystopian trusted computing/Palladium/NGSCB stuff than PC hardware is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a distinct threat to FOSS in smartphones ; but it is n't android , or even the largely proprietary apps running on top of it .
Heck , on the software side , having a FOSS OS as a rapidly rising contender is at least as good , if not better , than things have ever been on the PC side .
Especially since , if the underlying OS is FOSS , and that is what commercial applications are developed on , it is quite easy to compromise only as much as needed in order to run particular proprietary applications ( compare to say , the situation with Linux , where most proprietary apps are for windows , so if you need to use just one , you either have to pray it works with Wine , or dual boot , or virtualize .
) If both proprietary and FOSS apps are running on a FOSS base , you can freely pick and chose .
The problem is the hardware , and the carriers .
With PCs , there is nothing ( aside from certain driver issues ) stopping you from running whatever you want on your hardware .
And , with a bit of informed shopping , you can usually get a desirable hardware configuration without too much trouble .
With phones , though , the manufacturers and carriers have their hooks into the process much more deeply .
While the implementations have often been pretty weak , allowing a variety of hacks , proprietary components explicitly targeted against the user are ubiquitous ( SIM locks , anyone ?
) and even the FOSS components are apt to be more or less tivoized on most handsets that you can actually buy .
I 'd say that smartphone software is shaping up to be freer than PC software ; but smartphone hardware is far closer to dystopian trusted computing/Palladium/NGSCB stuff than PC hardware is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a distinct threat to FOSS in smartphones; but it isn't android, or even the largely proprietary apps running on top of it.
Heck, on the software side, having a FOSS OS as a rapidly rising contender is at least as good, if not better, than things have ever been on the PC side.
Especially since, if the underlying OS is FOSS, and that is what commercial applications are developed on, it is quite easy to compromise only as much as needed in order to run particular proprietary applications(compare to say, the situation with Linux, where most proprietary apps are for windows, so if you need to use just one, you either have to pray it works with Wine, or dual boot, or virtualize.
) If both proprietary and FOSS apps are running on a FOSS base, you can freely pick and chose.
The problem is the hardware, and the carriers.
With PCs, there is nothing(aside from certain driver issues) stopping you from running whatever you want on your hardware.
And, with a bit of informed shopping, you can usually get a desirable hardware configuration without too much trouble.
With phones, though, the manufacturers and carriers have their hooks into the process much more deeply.
While the implementations have often been pretty weak, allowing a variety of hacks, proprietary components explicitly targeted against the user are ubiquitous(SIM locks, anyone?
) and even the FOSS components are apt to be more or less tivoized on most handsets that you can actually buy.
I'd say that smartphone software is shaping up to be freer than PC software; but smartphone hardware is far closer to dystopian trusted computing/Palladium/NGSCB stuff than PC hardware is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30516196</id>
	<title>Re:Actually, summary is wrong.</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1261386960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>http://www.androlib.com/appstatsfreepaid.aspx</p></div><p>Androgynous library?</p><p>Apps Tats Freep Aid?</p><p>Sorry, I'm not too enthusiastic about supporting tattoos and aiding Free Republic trolls. That's their thing, they are free to do it. But I'm not going to actively support it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.androlib.com/appstatsfreepaid.aspxAndrogynous library ? Apps Tats Freep Aid ? Sorry , I 'm not too enthusiastic about supporting tattoos and aiding Free Republic trolls .
That 's their thing , they are free to do it .
But I 'm not going to actively support it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.androlib.com/appstatsfreepaid.aspxAndrogynous library?Apps Tats Freep Aid?Sorry, I'm not too enthusiastic about supporting tattoos and aiding Free Republic trolls.
That's their thing, they are free to do it.
But I'm not going to actively support it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512552</id>
	<title>Which Community</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261413660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> "So what, if anything, should the community be doing about it?"</p><p>Which community are you referring too? the business community or the open source community? I suppose google being a bussiness doing quite well in other areas can afford to donate to the open source community, but the developers of these apps have to make a living. What would one expect?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" So what , if anything , should the community be doing about it ?
" Which community are you referring too ?
the business community or the open source community ?
I suppose google being a bussiness doing quite well in other areas can afford to donate to the open source community , but the developers of these apps have to make a living .
What would one expect ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "So what, if anything, should the community be doing about it?
"Which community are you referring too?
the business community or the open source community?
I suppose google being a bussiness doing quite well in other areas can afford to donate to the open source community, but the developers of these apps have to make a living.
What would one expect?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30517446</id>
	<title>Re:This is silly</title>
	<author>brentrad</author>
	<datestamp>1261393260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is silly.  And don't call me Shirley.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is silly .
And do n't call me Shirley .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is silly.
And don't call me Shirley.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513998</id>
	<title>Re:We've gone long enough without real progress...</title>
	<author>msgtomatt</author>
	<datestamp>1261420020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're right!
<p>Unfortunately, the leader in proprietary software is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... money.
</p><p>In proprietary software the customer gets the software they want by giving the company money. The company develops the software for the customer so they can get more customers and then money.
</p><p>In the free software model, the customer is the developer. The customer gets the software they want by either writing it themselves or by giving software they wrote for something else to someone else (contribution). In either case the primary exchange is dependent on someone volunteering their time to write code. Because of this, it is difficult for someone without any coding knowledge or someone who does not have the time to actually write the code to get the software they want. There may exist some piece of software that is close, as is the case when the customer needs are the same needs as the developer, and so a few customers will use it. But the number of customers that can use the software will be limithttp://linux.slashdot.org/story/09/12/21/142228/Androids-Success-a-Threat-To-Free-Software#ed because the software is not developed based on the customer needs, it is developed based on the developers needs, which are not necessarily the same for all customers.
</p><p>Money solves this by compensating the developers time to write software that the customer wants but may not have any value to the developer. If the free software model is to beat the proprietary model then the free model needs a way to reward or compensate the developer for creating apps that the customer wants not just apps the developer wants. The fundamental problem is that free software is developed for the community and not for the soccer mom or cheerleader.
</p><p>You might think that Google breaks this logic, until you consider that Google makes money by selling advertising. They are developing Android for the customer so they can sell more advertising, primarily through their search. They were successful with this approach with gMail, Picasa and bunch of other apps and are now applying it to Android.
</p><p>There are some sayings: "Money talks" and "The customer is always right". There is a reason why those saying exist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right !
Unfortunately , the leader in proprietary software is ... money . In proprietary software the customer gets the software they want by giving the company money .
The company develops the software for the customer so they can get more customers and then money .
In the free software model , the customer is the developer .
The customer gets the software they want by either writing it themselves or by giving software they wrote for something else to someone else ( contribution ) .
In either case the primary exchange is dependent on someone volunteering their time to write code .
Because of this , it is difficult for someone without any coding knowledge or someone who does not have the time to actually write the code to get the software they want .
There may exist some piece of software that is close , as is the case when the customer needs are the same needs as the developer , and so a few customers will use it .
But the number of customers that can use the software will be limithttp : //linux.slashdot.org/story/09/12/21/142228/Androids-Success-a-Threat-To-Free-Software # ed because the software is not developed based on the customer needs , it is developed based on the developers needs , which are not necessarily the same for all customers .
Money solves this by compensating the developers time to write software that the customer wants but may not have any value to the developer .
If the free software model is to beat the proprietary model then the free model needs a way to reward or compensate the developer for creating apps that the customer wants not just apps the developer wants .
The fundamental problem is that free software is developed for the community and not for the soccer mom or cheerleader .
You might think that Google breaks this logic , until you consider that Google makes money by selling advertising .
They are developing Android for the customer so they can sell more advertising , primarily through their search .
They were successful with this approach with gMail , Picasa and bunch of other apps and are now applying it to Android .
There are some sayings : " Money talks " and " The customer is always right " .
There is a reason why those saying exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right!
Unfortunately, the leader in proprietary software is ... money.
In proprietary software the customer gets the software they want by giving the company money.
The company develops the software for the customer so they can get more customers and then money.
In the free software model, the customer is the developer.
The customer gets the software they want by either writing it themselves or by giving software they wrote for something else to someone else (contribution).
In either case the primary exchange is dependent on someone volunteering their time to write code.
Because of this, it is difficult for someone without any coding knowledge or someone who does not have the time to actually write the code to get the software they want.
There may exist some piece of software that is close, as is the case when the customer needs are the same needs as the developer, and so a few customers will use it.
But the number of customers that can use the software will be limithttp://linux.slashdot.org/story/09/12/21/142228/Androids-Success-a-Threat-To-Free-Software#ed because the software is not developed based on the customer needs, it is developed based on the developers needs, which are not necessarily the same for all customers.
Money solves this by compensating the developers time to write software that the customer wants but may not have any value to the developer.
If the free software model is to beat the proprietary model then the free model needs a way to reward or compensate the developer for creating apps that the customer wants not just apps the developer wants.
The fundamental problem is that free software is developed for the community and not for the soccer mom or cheerleader.
You might think that Google breaks this logic, until you consider that Google makes money by selling advertising.
They are developing Android for the customer so they can sell more advertising, primarily through their search.
They were successful with this approach with gMail, Picasa and bunch of other apps and are now applying it to Android.
There are some sayings: "Money talks" and "The customer is always right".
There is a reason why those saying exist.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511948</id>
	<title>What could be healthier?</title>
	<author>rpp3po</author>
	<datestamp>1261410240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sick of those fundamentalists. What could be healthier than an open source platform without vendor lock-in, that anybody can use to generate some income. I love what has been produced in the spirit of open source and nobody won't take this away. But the everything <b>must</b> be free mentality is a bigger threat than people making money by selling software in binary form for a living. Good software means months of work and pizza and coffee need to be paid for. And experience has shown that at max 0.5\% of people pay for something that they can get for free easily and legally.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sick of those fundamentalists .
What could be healthier than an open source platform without vendor lock-in , that anybody can use to generate some income .
I love what has been produced in the spirit of open source and nobody wo n't take this away .
But the everything must be free mentality is a bigger threat than people making money by selling software in binary form for a living .
Good software means months of work and pizza and coffee need to be paid for .
And experience has shown that at max 0.5 \ % of people pay for something that they can get for free easily and legally .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sick of those fundamentalists.
What could be healthier than an open source platform without vendor lock-in, that anybody can use to generate some income.
I love what has been produced in the spirit of open source and nobody won't take this away.
But the everything must be free mentality is a bigger threat than people making money by selling software in binary form for a living.
Good software means months of work and pizza and coffee need to be paid for.
And experience has shown that at max 0.5\% of people pay for something that they can get for free easily and legally.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512576</id>
	<title>Re:Okay, I'll be the one to say it...</title>
	<author>jellomizer</author>
	<datestamp>1261413780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I actually like the Hybrid Open Source Closed source code...</p><p>The Stallman GNU view of the world is way to restrictive and doesn't foster large support. Yes People are greedy, but except for fighting the greed, make an environment where greed can be used for good.</p><p>There are some things Open Source has always had trouble with.  The most basic is making integrated User Interfaces, it is very hard to find a large base of developers who are willing to give a good UI for free as well working with non-programmers who don't care about open source to help create work (such as graphic designers) for free.  I am not saying it can't be done for a particular project as I am sure Slashdot will give a me a slew of projects that have a great UI.  But to have it don't for many projects gets much harder.</p><p>But there are things that Open Source does much better then commercial such as security and stability, and a lot of core functionality and features. These are things that good programers like to do and are willing to give it out just to help the community and/or make them selfs look good.</p><p>Hybrid really brings the best to both worlds.  A UI and integration can be recoded and redone as the need exists and the backend that does the real work can open so compatibility and interportability can be established and prevent anyone from having a strangle hold on the systems knowledge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually like the Hybrid Open Source Closed source code...The Stallman GNU view of the world is way to restrictive and does n't foster large support .
Yes People are greedy , but except for fighting the greed , make an environment where greed can be used for good.There are some things Open Source has always had trouble with .
The most basic is making integrated User Interfaces , it is very hard to find a large base of developers who are willing to give a good UI for free as well working with non-programmers who do n't care about open source to help create work ( such as graphic designers ) for free .
I am not saying it ca n't be done for a particular project as I am sure Slashdot will give a me a slew of projects that have a great UI .
But to have it do n't for many projects gets much harder.But there are things that Open Source does much better then commercial such as security and stability , and a lot of core functionality and features .
These are things that good programers like to do and are willing to give it out just to help the community and/or make them selfs look good.Hybrid really brings the best to both worlds .
A UI and integration can be recoded and redone as the need exists and the backend that does the real work can open so compatibility and interportability can be established and prevent anyone from having a strangle hold on the systems knowledge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually like the Hybrid Open Source Closed source code...The Stallman GNU view of the world is way to restrictive and doesn't foster large support.
Yes People are greedy, but except for fighting the greed, make an environment where greed can be used for good.There are some things Open Source has always had trouble with.
The most basic is making integrated User Interfaces, it is very hard to find a large base of developers who are willing to give a good UI for free as well working with non-programmers who don't care about open source to help create work (such as graphic designers) for free.
I am not saying it can't be done for a particular project as I am sure Slashdot will give a me a slew of projects that have a great UI.
But to have it don't for many projects gets much harder.But there are things that Open Source does much better then commercial such as security and stability, and a lot of core functionality and features.
These are things that good programers like to do and are willing to give it out just to help the community and/or make them selfs look good.Hybrid really brings the best to both worlds.
A UI and integration can be recoded and redone as the need exists and the backend that does the real work can open so compatibility and interportability can be established and prevent anyone from having a strangle hold on the systems knowledge.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30518934</id>
	<title>Re:Is anybody actually making money from these app</title>
	<author>mjwx</author>
	<datestamp>1261404060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Also does anybody audit android apps to make sure there are no backdoors or parts of the app which email all your data to some website?</p></div></blockquote><p>

You do.<br> <br>

Unlike most other mobile devices Android features an on-device security model, an application cannot access your personal data, Phone services, Wifi or mobile internet connection without your express permission. All this is displayed when you install the application.<br> <br>

This system has it's flaws but it is a lot better then Apple's system of "Trust us, we'll control everything and make you safe" security through obscurity system.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also does anybody audit android apps to make sure there are no backdoors or parts of the app which email all your data to some website ?
You do .
Unlike most other mobile devices Android features an on-device security model , an application can not access your personal data , Phone services , Wifi or mobile internet connection without your express permission .
All this is displayed when you install the application .
This system has it 's flaws but it is a lot better then Apple 's system of " Trust us , we 'll control everything and make you safe " security through obscurity system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also does anybody audit android apps to make sure there are no backdoors or parts of the app which email all your data to some website?
You do.
Unlike most other mobile devices Android features an on-device security model, an application cannot access your personal data, Phone services, Wifi or mobile internet connection without your express permission.
All this is displayed when you install the application.
This system has it's flaws but it is a lot better then Apple's system of "Trust us, we'll control everything and make you safe" security through obscurity system.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513416</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512164</id>
	<title>All free/open source no free/open source</title>
	<author>Danathar</author>
	<datestamp>1261411500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With all due respect to Richard Stallman and others who agree with that philosophy, to expect that people are not going to write commercial software for free platforms is just plain daffy. Is it so unreasonable to expect a combination of the software?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With all due respect to Richard Stallman and others who agree with that philosophy , to expect that people are not going to write commercial software for free platforms is just plain daffy .
Is it so unreasonable to expect a combination of the software ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With all due respect to Richard Stallman and others who agree with that philosophy, to expect that people are not going to write commercial software for free platforms is just plain daffy.
Is it so unreasonable to expect a combination of the software?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512654</id>
	<title>I actually think this is a good and healthy...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261414200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... development.</p><p>As far as I am concerned, FOSS isn't essential in all niche markets. It's essential wherever the health of my data is concerned - that is, for document importers/exporters, filesystems, and for networking. It's very useful in relation to programming languages - compilers, interpreters, and runtimes should be FOSS.</p><p>With those two categories, you've almost (but not quite) covered operating systems. Filesystems, networking and to an extent language runtimes (libc) are essential elements of an operating system (not just the kernel, I'm talking about the whole package). So let's extend the argument to all aspects of an OS... and you can pretty much lump everything I mentioned together under the "infrastructure" tag.</p><p>For "infrastructure" software, FOSS is useful or even essential. It'll let programmers work with few restrictions on how software interacts.</p><p>When it comes to the display and manipulation of my data, I'm less fussed. If a non-free software is the best software for that task, and it's edge over the free competitors is great enough to warrant paying, I'll gladly pay for it. If not, I'll stick to free software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... development.As far as I am concerned , FOSS is n't essential in all niche markets .
It 's essential wherever the health of my data is concerned - that is , for document importers/exporters , filesystems , and for networking .
It 's very useful in relation to programming languages - compilers , interpreters , and runtimes should be FOSS.With those two categories , you 've almost ( but not quite ) covered operating systems .
Filesystems , networking and to an extent language runtimes ( libc ) are essential elements of an operating system ( not just the kernel , I 'm talking about the whole package ) .
So let 's extend the argument to all aspects of an OS... and you can pretty much lump everything I mentioned together under the " infrastructure " tag.For " infrastructure " software , FOSS is useful or even essential .
It 'll let programmers work with few restrictions on how software interacts.When it comes to the display and manipulation of my data , I 'm less fussed .
If a non-free software is the best software for that task , and it 's edge over the free competitors is great enough to warrant paying , I 'll gladly pay for it .
If not , I 'll stick to free software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... development.As far as I am concerned, FOSS isn't essential in all niche markets.
It's essential wherever the health of my data is concerned - that is, for document importers/exporters, filesystems, and for networking.
It's very useful in relation to programming languages - compilers, interpreters, and runtimes should be FOSS.With those two categories, you've almost (but not quite) covered operating systems.
Filesystems, networking and to an extent language runtimes (libc) are essential elements of an operating system (not just the kernel, I'm talking about the whole package).
So let's extend the argument to all aspects of an OS... and you can pretty much lump everything I mentioned together under the "infrastructure" tag.For "infrastructure" software, FOSS is useful or even essential.
It'll let programmers work with few restrictions on how software interacts.When it comes to the display and manipulation of my data, I'm less fussed.
If a non-free software is the best software for that task, and it's edge over the free competitors is great enough to warrant paying, I'll gladly pay for it.
If not, I'll stick to free software.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512640</id>
	<title>What's wrong with this?</title>
	<author>Bruha</author>
	<datestamp>1261414140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd rather have a open source OS with proprietary apps on top than a proprietary OS with free apps on top.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd rather have a open source OS with proprietary apps on top than a proprietary OS with free apps on top .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd rather have a open source OS with proprietary apps on top than a proprietary OS with free apps on top.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512084</id>
	<title>OT: Palm has by far the most apps</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261410960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The old PalmOS has by far the most "apps" and they don't have to be approved by anyone:</p><p><a href="http://www.freewarepalm.com/" title="freewarepalm.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.freewarepalm.com/</a> [freewarepalm.com]<br><a href="http://www.handango.com/" title="handango.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.handango.com/</a> [handango.com]<br><a href="http://www.pocketgear.com/" title="pocketgear.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.pocketgear.com/</a> [pocketgear.com]<br><a href="http://www.mobihand.com/" title="mobihand.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.mobihand.com/</a> [mobihand.com]<br><a href="http://www.pdastreet.com/" title="pdastreet.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.pdastreet.com/</a> [pdastreet.com]<br>and also: <a href="http://sf.net/" title="sf.net" rel="nofollow">http://sf.net/</a> [sf.net]</p><p>I never understand why everyone is so amazed by the iPhone's "Apps". Handheld apps have been around for over 10 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The old PalmOS has by far the most " apps " and they do n't have to be approved by anyone : http : //www.freewarepalm.com/ [ freewarepalm.com ] http : //www.handango.com/ [ handango.com ] http : //www.pocketgear.com/ [ pocketgear.com ] http : //www.mobihand.com/ [ mobihand.com ] http : //www.pdastreet.com/ [ pdastreet.com ] and also : http : //sf.net/ [ sf.net ] I never understand why everyone is so amazed by the iPhone 's " Apps " .
Handheld apps have been around for over 10 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The old PalmOS has by far the most "apps" and they don't have to be approved by anyone:http://www.freewarepalm.com/ [freewarepalm.com]http://www.handango.com/ [handango.com]http://www.pocketgear.com/ [pocketgear.com]http://www.mobihand.com/ [mobihand.com]http://www.pdastreet.com/ [pdastreet.com]and also: http://sf.net/ [sf.net]I never understand why everyone is so amazed by the iPhone's "Apps".
Handheld apps have been around for over 10 years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30517696</id>
	<title>Re:Well, let's see</title>
	<author>Urkki</author>
	<datestamp>1261394580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>That may be the point of open source software. But I seriously doubt it is the point of Free Software. I have a vague feeling that the point of Free Software is Software Freedom. Complete Software Freedom.  No non-Free Software needed by any software user. Ever. Perhaps I have gotten it wrong all these years though.</p></div><p>Also worth noticing, that Free Software is about Freedom of Software. Not the user, not the developer, but the Software. It limits the freedom of developing original code on top of existing code (as opposed to just tweaking existing code), and that can have also a negative (not only positive) impact on the user as well.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That may be the point of open source software .
But I seriously doubt it is the point of Free Software .
I have a vague feeling that the point of Free Software is Software Freedom .
Complete Software Freedom .
No non-Free Software needed by any software user .
Ever. Perhaps I have gotten it wrong all these years though.Also worth noticing , that Free Software is about Freedom of Software .
Not the user , not the developer , but the Software .
It limits the freedom of developing original code on top of existing code ( as opposed to just tweaking existing code ) , and that can have also a negative ( not only positive ) impact on the user as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That may be the point of open source software.
But I seriously doubt it is the point of Free Software.
I have a vague feeling that the point of Free Software is Software Freedom.
Complete Software Freedom.
No non-Free Software needed by any software user.
Ever. Perhaps I have gotten it wrong all these years though.Also worth noticing, that Free Software is about Freedom of Software.
Not the user, not the developer, but the Software.
It limits the freedom of developing original code on top of existing code (as opposed to just tweaking existing code), and that can have also a negative (not only positive) impact on the user as well.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512550</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30519700</id>
	<title>Re:Actually, summary is wrong.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261410060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How can this be modded anything else than 0:clueless?<br>Parent is either trolling or doesn't seem to understand what is commonly referred to as free software (cue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free\_software)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How can this be modded anything else than 0 : clueless ? Parent is either trolling or does n't seem to understand what is commonly referred to as free software ( cue : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free \ _software )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can this be modded anything else than 0:clueless?Parent is either trolling or doesn't seem to understand what is commonly referred to as free software (cue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free\_software)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512438</id>
	<title>Re:The obvious answer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261413120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am sure that Stallman would disagree and suggest instead that a new license is proposed.  The new GPL 4 will state that if you run any GPL software on your device (phone, computer, what have you), then all other software on the device must be GPL'ed as well.</p><p>This could be a hassle for end users to sort through and ensure their compliance, but lets be honest, the end user experience has never exactly been a strong point for open source.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am sure that Stallman would disagree and suggest instead that a new license is proposed .
The new GPL 4 will state that if you run any GPL software on your device ( phone , computer , what have you ) , then all other software on the device must be GPL'ed as well.This could be a hassle for end users to sort through and ensure their compliance , but lets be honest , the end user experience has never exactly been a strong point for open source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am sure that Stallman would disagree and suggest instead that a new license is proposed.
The new GPL 4 will state that if you run any GPL software on your device (phone, computer, what have you), then all other software on the device must be GPL'ed as well.This could be a hassle for end users to sort through and ensure their compliance, but lets be honest, the end user experience has never exactly been a strong point for open source.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511884</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513458</id>
	<title>Where's the problem? Fluff article</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261417740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;  open source underneath, and proprietary on top.</p><p>OMG! What a calamity!! We'll have to wait for a Simone de Beauvoir or Virginia Woolf of Open Source then, to get FOSS back on top?!!</p><p>But seriously,  this article is just pontificatory BS. Hasnt this already happened with Apple (Free as in air BSD inside, Gulag errm "walled garden" outside ? FOSS if anything is *strengthened* by every attempt to proprietarize it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; open source underneath , and proprietary on top.OMG !
What a calamity ! !
We 'll have to wait for a Simone de Beauvoir or Virginia Woolf of Open Source then , to get FOSS back on top ? !
! But seriously , this article is just pontificatory BS .
Hasnt this already happened with Apple ( Free as in air BSD inside , Gulag errm " walled garden " outside ?
FOSS if anything is * strengthened * by every attempt to proprietarize it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;  open source underneath, and proprietary on top.OMG!
What a calamity!!
We'll have to wait for a Simone de Beauvoir or Virginia Woolf of Open Source then, to get FOSS back on top?!
!But seriously,  this article is just pontificatory BS.
Hasnt this already happened with Apple (Free as in air BSD inside, Gulag errm "walled garden" outside ?
FOSS if anything is *strengthened* by every attempt to proprietarize it!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512854</id>
	<title>Birth?!</title>
	<author>Sloppy</author>
	<datestamp>1261415160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>we seem to be witnessing the birth of a new hybrid stack &mdash; open source underneath, and proprietary on top.</p></div></blockquote><p>Birth, huh?  I'll try to remember that risk before I allow it to infect my Linux computer (with a few Loki games installed) that runs Netscape 4 with the Flash and Acrobat plugins, displayed on my screen thanks to Nvidia's driver.</p><p>I think the birth you're talking about, happened in the mid 1990s at the latest.  I remember running a proprietary Linux in 1996 from Caldera which had some weird Caldera-only extension for mounting a Netware fileserver. (Yes, other dists could talk to Netware too, but Caldera had some "special" stuff for that.)  And the reason I was running Linux, was that I was trying out a proprietary compiler&amp;libraries that was going to help me port a legacy (MSDOS) app to Unixes. [Though that project ended up getting canceled after I showed we could do it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:( ]</p><p>We've been through all this bullshit before.  And if it makes you feel any better, Free Software not only survived but has only gained marketshare since then.  Free Software can survive Android proprietary apps.</p><blockquote><div><p>So what, if anything, should the community be doing about it?</p></div></blockquote><p>The same thing you've always done.  If you want maintainable software, then Just Say No to the proprietary single-vendor stuff.  Vote with your wallet.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>we seem to be witnessing the birth of a new hybrid stack    open source underneath , and proprietary on top.Birth , huh ?
I 'll try to remember that risk before I allow it to infect my Linux computer ( with a few Loki games installed ) that runs Netscape 4 with the Flash and Acrobat plugins , displayed on my screen thanks to Nvidia 's driver.I think the birth you 're talking about , happened in the mid 1990s at the latest .
I remember running a proprietary Linux in 1996 from Caldera which had some weird Caldera-only extension for mounting a Netware fileserver .
( Yes , other dists could talk to Netware too , but Caldera had some " special " stuff for that .
) And the reason I was running Linux , was that I was trying out a proprietary compiler&amp;libraries that was going to help me port a legacy ( MSDOS ) app to Unixes .
[ Though that project ended up getting canceled after I showed we could do it : ( ] We 've been through all this bullshit before .
And if it makes you feel any better , Free Software not only survived but has only gained marketshare since then .
Free Software can survive Android proprietary apps.So what , if anything , should the community be doing about it ? The same thing you 've always done .
If you want maintainable software , then Just Say No to the proprietary single-vendor stuff .
Vote with your wallet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we seem to be witnessing the birth of a new hybrid stack — open source underneath, and proprietary on top.Birth, huh?
I'll try to remember that risk before I allow it to infect my Linux computer (with a few Loki games installed) that runs Netscape 4 with the Flash and Acrobat plugins, displayed on my screen thanks to Nvidia's driver.I think the birth you're talking about, happened in the mid 1990s at the latest.
I remember running a proprietary Linux in 1996 from Caldera which had some weird Caldera-only extension for mounting a Netware fileserver.
(Yes, other dists could talk to Netware too, but Caldera had some "special" stuff for that.
)  And the reason I was running Linux, was that I was trying out a proprietary compiler&amp;libraries that was going to help me port a legacy (MSDOS) app to Unixes.
[Though that project ended up getting canceled after I showed we could do it :( ]We've been through all this bullshit before.
And if it makes you feel any better, Free Software not only survived but has only gained marketshare since then.
Free Software can survive Android proprietary apps.So what, if anything, should the community be doing about it?The same thing you've always done.
If you want maintainable software, then Just Say No to the proprietary single-vendor stuff.
Vote with your wallet.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512448</id>
	<title>Re:Maemo</title>
	<author>scourfish</author>
	<datestamp>1261413180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>According to wikipedia, Maemo is largely open source with some mandatory proprietary components.  How is this different from Android?</htmltext>
<tokenext>According to wikipedia , Maemo is largely open source with some mandatory proprietary components .
How is this different from Android ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>According to wikipedia, Maemo is largely open source with some mandatory proprietary components.
How is this different from Android?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512968</id>
	<title>Re:Uh...build your own free app?</title>
	<author>bluefoxlucid</author>
	<datestamp>1261415580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it's stallman alarmism.  RMS is retarded and lives in a hippie communist world.</p><p>
It works pretty much like this:  Linus wrote Linux, and then a billion people jumped in like "oh cool, I like this and this would be personally enriching to work on."  A bunch of people wrote GNOME, because it was personally enriching.  Lots of people do this, lots of software is written because we <em>like</em> writing software and can resum&#233;-pad with it.  It's economics, really; developers do it because it's fun, or because they're compsci students and actually want to be good programmers, or want experience for their resum&#233; ("unpaid internship" is a bullshit term, it's payment in non-money).
</p><p>
Richard Stallman, on the other hand, started writing Hurd in an effort to dethrone the evil, capitalist pigs trying to sell and keep secret their software.  Such evil pigs are a threat to our freedom, and god damnit, their software needs to be forced open or discarded and hammered into oblivion by open source alternatives.  All software <em>must</em> be free and any not-free software that doesn't come with a free distribution license and <em>source code</em> is a horrible bane and destructive to humanity.
</p><p>
You see, open source software isn't just one person.  It's full of crazy people and smart people, and unfortunately brilliant crazy people as well.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's stallman alarmism .
RMS is retarded and lives in a hippie communist world .
It works pretty much like this : Linus wrote Linux , and then a billion people jumped in like " oh cool , I like this and this would be personally enriching to work on .
" A bunch of people wrote GNOME , because it was personally enriching .
Lots of people do this , lots of software is written because we like writing software and can resum   -pad with it .
It 's economics , really ; developers do it because it 's fun , or because they 're compsci students and actually want to be good programmers , or want experience for their resum   ( " unpaid internship " is a bullshit term , it 's payment in non-money ) .
Richard Stallman , on the other hand , started writing Hurd in an effort to dethrone the evil , capitalist pigs trying to sell and keep secret their software .
Such evil pigs are a threat to our freedom , and god damnit , their software needs to be forced open or discarded and hammered into oblivion by open source alternatives .
All software must be free and any not-free software that does n't come with a free distribution license and source code is a horrible bane and destructive to humanity .
You see , open source software is n't just one person .
It 's full of crazy people and smart people , and unfortunately brilliant crazy people as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's stallman alarmism.
RMS is retarded and lives in a hippie communist world.
It works pretty much like this:  Linus wrote Linux, and then a billion people jumped in like "oh cool, I like this and this would be personally enriching to work on.
"  A bunch of people wrote GNOME, because it was personally enriching.
Lots of people do this, lots of software is written because we like writing software and can resumé-pad with it.
It's economics, really; developers do it because it's fun, or because they're compsci students and actually want to be good programmers, or want experience for their resumé ("unpaid internship" is a bullshit term, it's payment in non-money).
Richard Stallman, on the other hand, started writing Hurd in an effort to dethrone the evil, capitalist pigs trying to sell and keep secret their software.
Such evil pigs are a threat to our freedom, and god damnit, their software needs to be forced open or discarded and hammered into oblivion by open source alternatives.
All software must be free and any not-free software that doesn't come with a free distribution license and source code is a horrible bane and destructive to humanity.
You see, open source software isn't just one person.
It's full of crazy people and smart people, and unfortunately brilliant crazy people as well.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512954</id>
	<title>open moko?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261415520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are already phones with open source software. They are somewhat limited to what thy can do and rough on edges, but its pnly begining.<br>I see no reason why you "have to" use phone for that.<br>Author is concerned with mobile phones, while mobile phone technology is getting simply out of date. As simple as that. There will be computers in size comparable to mobile phones with all sort of wireless connectivity and connection to internet, which will make cellular networks obsolete. Why call and waste money when u have relatively cheap wireless connection with same range as mobile phones(GPRS and similar stuff), which is capable of sending receiving phone calls or able to use VOIP?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are already phones with open source software .
They are somewhat limited to what thy can do and rough on edges , but its pnly begining.I see no reason why you " have to " use phone for that.Author is concerned with mobile phones , while mobile phone technology is getting simply out of date .
As simple as that .
There will be computers in size comparable to mobile phones with all sort of wireless connectivity and connection to internet , which will make cellular networks obsolete .
Why call and waste money when u have relatively cheap wireless connection with same range as mobile phones ( GPRS and similar stuff ) , which is capable of sending receiving phone calls or able to use VOIP ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are already phones with open source software.
They are somewhat limited to what thy can do and rough on edges, but its pnly begining.I see no reason why you "have to" use phone for that.Author is concerned with mobile phones, while mobile phone technology is getting simply out of date.
As simple as that.
There will be computers in size comparable to mobile phones with all sort of wireless connectivity and connection to internet, which will make cellular networks obsolete.
Why call and waste money when u have relatively cheap wireless connection with same range as mobile phones(GPRS and similar stuff), which is capable of sending receiving phone calls or able to use VOIP?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513076</id>
	<title>Re:flawed premise</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1261416060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Absolute nonsense.  I can connect bluetooth input devices to my old phone.  You can get projectors that are not much bigger than a phone now; in a couple of years expect to see them integrated with phones, and then you've got as big a screen as you want.  Until then, HDMI and Mini DisplayPort are both small enough to fit on my phone without any problems.  Battery life is only an issue when mobile - if it's connected to other peripherals at home, it's charging, and if it isn't then it already has a portability advantage over anything else.  Storage?  The N900 comes with 32GB of flash.  That's about a quarter of the disk space my current laptop has.  Given the trends in Flash prices over the last two decades, expect to see it keep increasing rapidly.  By the way, 32GB is a lot more than the total amount of data on my mother's computer; she still backs everything up onto a CDRW.  </p><p>
Your post sounds like the kind of comment I was reading here five or so years ago saying that laptops would never become the main computing platform and people would still need desktops for real work.  Now, how many people still own desktops?  Fewer than own laptops by a large margin.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Absolute nonsense .
I can connect bluetooth input devices to my old phone .
You can get projectors that are not much bigger than a phone now ; in a couple of years expect to see them integrated with phones , and then you 've got as big a screen as you want .
Until then , HDMI and Mini DisplayPort are both small enough to fit on my phone without any problems .
Battery life is only an issue when mobile - if it 's connected to other peripherals at home , it 's charging , and if it is n't then it already has a portability advantage over anything else .
Storage ? The N900 comes with 32GB of flash .
That 's about a quarter of the disk space my current laptop has .
Given the trends in Flash prices over the last two decades , expect to see it keep increasing rapidly .
By the way , 32GB is a lot more than the total amount of data on my mother 's computer ; she still backs everything up onto a CDRW .
Your post sounds like the kind of comment I was reading here five or so years ago saying that laptops would never become the main computing platform and people would still need desktops for real work .
Now , how many people still own desktops ?
Fewer than own laptops by a large margin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Absolute nonsense.
I can connect bluetooth input devices to my old phone.
You can get projectors that are not much bigger than a phone now; in a couple of years expect to see them integrated with phones, and then you've got as big a screen as you want.
Until then, HDMI and Mini DisplayPort are both small enough to fit on my phone without any problems.
Battery life is only an issue when mobile - if it's connected to other peripherals at home, it's charging, and if it isn't then it already has a portability advantage over anything else.
Storage?  The N900 comes with 32GB of flash.
That's about a quarter of the disk space my current laptop has.
Given the trends in Flash prices over the last two decades, expect to see it keep increasing rapidly.
By the way, 32GB is a lot more than the total amount of data on my mother's computer; she still backs everything up onto a CDRW.
Your post sounds like the kind of comment I was reading here five or so years ago saying that laptops would never become the main computing platform and people would still need desktops for real work.
Now, how many people still own desktops?
Fewer than own laptops by a large margin.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513004</id>
	<title>Re:Well, let's see</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261415700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the point of open source software is that it's supposed to be better than proprietary. (this is a developpement model)</p><p>the point of free software is to remain free. (this is a philosophy)</p><p>at least that's what RMS meant when writing the GPL...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the point of open source software is that it 's supposed to be better than proprietary .
( this is a developpement model ) the point of free software is to remain free .
( this is a philosophy ) at least that 's what RMS meant when writing the GPL.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the point of open source software is that it's supposed to be better than proprietary.
(this is a developpement model)the point of free software is to remain free.
(this is a philosophy)at least that's what RMS meant when writing the GPL...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30514486</id>
	<title>What indeed...</title>
	<author>sbeckstead</author>
	<datestamp>1261422240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>So what, if anything, should the community be doing about it?"</i> <br>
Shut up pay your money to the good developers that have decided to hitch their stars to your sacred platform and hope that eventually you get some free stuff later.  This is, on it's face, a stupid question actually!</htmltext>
<tokenext>So what , if anything , should the community be doing about it ?
" Shut up pay your money to the good developers that have decided to hitch their stars to your sacred platform and hope that eventually you get some free stuff later .
This is , on it 's face , a stupid question actually !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what, if anything, should the community be doing about it?
" 
Shut up pay your money to the good developers that have decided to hitch their stars to your sacred platform and hope that eventually you get some free stuff later.
This is, on it's face, a stupid question actually!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512816</id>
	<title>Well, what else did you expect to happen?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261414980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What else do yo expect when you essentially give away source code to commercial players with traditional "intellectual property" morale?</p><p>It was bound to happen sooner or later. When you give food to wolves, don't expect them to return the favor. A wolf is a wolf, it is born a wolf, lives a wolf, and in most cases dies a wolf.</p><p>A smart idea would be to have a license that restricts not just mixing open source code with propritary (something GPL now handles well, restricting it, that is) but also bundling open source software with proprietary components. There should be minimal and weakest link between parts where some components are open-source and others are proprietary. That would teach those vultures a lesson. Because what they do now is that they eat from the table, but do not give anything back - they use the open source that thousands of people helped debug and release, and then think of it as something ready to be used and stack their own oldschool products on top of it, if slightly modified to both work on top of the underlying open source tech and give impression as if they are part of open-source ecosystem, when in reality their fingers are still twitching in fear someone else might steal their "proprietary" technology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What else do yo expect when you essentially give away source code to commercial players with traditional " intellectual property " morale ? It was bound to happen sooner or later .
When you give food to wolves , do n't expect them to return the favor .
A wolf is a wolf , it is born a wolf , lives a wolf , and in most cases dies a wolf.A smart idea would be to have a license that restricts not just mixing open source code with propritary ( something GPL now handles well , restricting it , that is ) but also bundling open source software with proprietary components .
There should be minimal and weakest link between parts where some components are open-source and others are proprietary .
That would teach those vultures a lesson .
Because what they do now is that they eat from the table , but do not give anything back - they use the open source that thousands of people helped debug and release , and then think of it as something ready to be used and stack their own oldschool products on top of it , if slightly modified to both work on top of the underlying open source tech and give impression as if they are part of open-source ecosystem , when in reality their fingers are still twitching in fear someone else might steal their " proprietary " technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What else do yo expect when you essentially give away source code to commercial players with traditional "intellectual property" morale?It was bound to happen sooner or later.
When you give food to wolves, don't expect them to return the favor.
A wolf is a wolf, it is born a wolf, lives a wolf, and in most cases dies a wolf.A smart idea would be to have a license that restricts not just mixing open source code with propritary (something GPL now handles well, restricting it, that is) but also bundling open source software with proprietary components.
There should be minimal and weakest link between parts where some components are open-source and others are proprietary.
That would teach those vultures a lesson.
Because what they do now is that they eat from the table, but do not give anything back - they use the open source that thousands of people helped debug and release, and then think of it as something ready to be used and stack their own oldschool products on top of it, if slightly modified to both work on top of the underlying open source tech and give impression as if they are part of open-source ecosystem, when in reality their fingers are still twitching in fear someone else might steal their "proprietary" technology.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511880</id>
	<title>Okay, I'll be the one to say it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261409820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; So what, if anything, should the community be doing about it?</p><p>Ummm... writing good, foss apps to do the things you need/want to do?  Seems obvious.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; So what , if anything , should the community be doing about it ? Ummm... writing good , foss apps to do the things you need/want to do ?
Seems obvious .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; So what, if anything, should the community be doing about it?Ummm... writing good, foss apps to do the things you need/want to do?
Seems obvious.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512622</id>
	<title>Re:Okay, I'll be the one to say it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261414020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; &gt; So what, if anything, should the community be doing about it?</p><p>&gt;Ummm... writing good, foss apps to do the things you need/want to do? Seems obvious</p><p>If they haven't been doing it up to now, what makes you think they are going to do it starting now?</p><p>FOSS is kind of funny.  It's been dead of it's own incompetence for at least a decade, but nobody involved seemed to have noticed.  They're still fighting the "browser wars", for goodness sake.</p><p>The primary reason FOSS will always lose is because most of the people want to work on the "cool" or fun stuff... yet nobody wants to do the hard and boring stuff.  That's why Firefox STILL has the same memory leaks it's always had- because it's so much easier to make a newer funner plugin (or write another text editor) than it is to hunt down bugs.</p><p>Another issue is focus.  Instead of putting time and resources into Teh Lunix on mobile platforms, they instead squandering their time trying to beat Windows.</p><p>You go, Lunix!  You just may end up making the very bestest buggy whip out there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; So what , if anything , should the community be doing about it ? &gt; Ummm... writing good , foss apps to do the things you need/want to do ?
Seems obviousIf they have n't been doing it up to now , what makes you think they are going to do it starting now ? FOSS is kind of funny .
It 's been dead of it 's own incompetence for at least a decade , but nobody involved seemed to have noticed .
They 're still fighting the " browser wars " , for goodness sake.The primary reason FOSS will always lose is because most of the people want to work on the " cool " or fun stuff... yet nobody wants to do the hard and boring stuff .
That 's why Firefox STILL has the same memory leaks it 's always had- because it 's so much easier to make a newer funner plugin ( or write another text editor ) than it is to hunt down bugs.Another issue is focus .
Instead of putting time and resources into Teh Lunix on mobile platforms , they instead squandering their time trying to beat Windows.You go , Lunix !
You just may end up making the very bestest buggy whip out there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; &gt; So what, if anything, should the community be doing about it?&gt;Ummm... writing good, foss apps to do the things you need/want to do?
Seems obviousIf they haven't been doing it up to now, what makes you think they are going to do it starting now?FOSS is kind of funny.
It's been dead of it's own incompetence for at least a decade, but nobody involved seemed to have noticed.
They're still fighting the "browser wars", for goodness sake.The primary reason FOSS will always lose is because most of the people want to work on the "cool" or fun stuff... yet nobody wants to do the hard and boring stuff.
That's why Firefox STILL has the same memory leaks it's always had- because it's so much easier to make a newer funner plugin (or write another text editor) than it is to hunt down bugs.Another issue is focus.
Instead of putting time and resources into Teh Lunix on mobile platforms, they instead squandering their time trying to beat Windows.You go, Lunix!
You just may end up making the very bestest buggy whip out there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30516276</id>
	<title>Re:Okay, I'll be the one to say it...</title>
	<author>Dahamma</author>
	<datestamp>1261387200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seems obvious, but it isn't.  The problem is that people tend to write software for free for themselves to use, and they write software for money for others to use.  And most FOSS projects are not started by "the community", they are started by one very motivated person (or a few max) and then eventually snowball into a real FOSS "communbity project".</p><p>Most of the free (as in beer - there are very few open source, since Apple restricts distribution anyway) apps on the iPhone are either trivial, demos, or supporting services (Facebook, Google, Pandora, etc).  Games especially are rarely free, since few people have any interest (or financial resources) in spending months developing a decent game without getting paid for it.</p><p>Anyway... I think the original question was a very good one, but maybe just needs to be restated: what needs to happen/change in the development tools, community, or something else for open source projects to flourish on the Android platform the way they have on the PC?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems obvious , but it is n't .
The problem is that people tend to write software for free for themselves to use , and they write software for money for others to use .
And most FOSS projects are not started by " the community " , they are started by one very motivated person ( or a few max ) and then eventually snowball into a real FOSS " communbity project " .Most of the free ( as in beer - there are very few open source , since Apple restricts distribution anyway ) apps on the iPhone are either trivial , demos , or supporting services ( Facebook , Google , Pandora , etc ) .
Games especially are rarely free , since few people have any interest ( or financial resources ) in spending months developing a decent game without getting paid for it.Anyway... I think the original question was a very good one , but maybe just needs to be restated : what needs to happen/change in the development tools , community , or something else for open source projects to flourish on the Android platform the way they have on the PC ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems obvious, but it isn't.
The problem is that people tend to write software for free for themselves to use, and they write software for money for others to use.
And most FOSS projects are not started by "the community", they are started by one very motivated person (or a few max) and then eventually snowball into a real FOSS "communbity project".Most of the free (as in beer - there are very few open source, since Apple restricts distribution anyway) apps on the iPhone are either trivial, demos, or supporting services (Facebook, Google, Pandora, etc).
Games especially are rarely free, since few people have any interest (or financial resources) in spending months developing a decent game without getting paid for it.Anyway... I think the original question was a very good one, but maybe just needs to be restated: what needs to happen/change in the development tools, community, or something else for open source projects to flourish on the Android platform the way they have on the PC?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30523192</id>
	<title>Temporary artificial scarcity?</title>
	<author>Paul Fernhout</author>
	<datestamp>1261494780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do people feel about applications that are proprietary for three years and then released under the GPL? Id software did this (after five years) with Doom. I'm thinking of doing that with an application I am writing for Android.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do people feel about applications that are proprietary for three years and then released under the GPL ?
Id software did this ( after five years ) with Doom .
I 'm thinking of doing that with an application I am writing for Android .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do people feel about applications that are proprietary for three years and then released under the GPL?
Id software did this (after five years) with Doom.
I'm thinking of doing that with an application I am writing for Android.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30514502</id>
	<title>A couple of points</title>
	<author>dup\_account</author>
	<datestamp>1261422300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1. It would be nice if Google included an OSS category, or a bonus award for an OSS prize winner.  At least encourage good behaviour.
<p>
2. A lot of the closed stuff is crap, and could be improved to be usable or extended if it was open source.
</p><p>
3. You can actually do both.  Maybe include the source with your app, or use a license like<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... where when you make changes, they go back to the original author.
</p><p>
4. Maybe of the posts are missing the pointer or don't understand open software.  You wouldn't have Linux as-is today without it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
It would be nice if Google included an OSS category , or a bonus award for an OSS prize winner .
At least encourage good behaviour .
2. A lot of the closed stuff is crap , and could be improved to be usable or extended if it was open source .
3. You can actually do both .
Maybe include the source with your app , or use a license like .... where when you make changes , they go back to the original author .
4. Maybe of the posts are missing the pointer or do n't understand open software .
You would n't have Linux as-is today without it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
It would be nice if Google included an OSS category, or a bonus award for an OSS prize winner.
At least encourage good behaviour.
2. A lot of the closed stuff is crap, and could be improved to be usable or extended if it was open source.
3. You can actually do both.
Maybe include the source with your app, or use a license like .... where when you make changes, they go back to the original author.
4. Maybe of the posts are missing the pointer or don't understand open software.
You wouldn't have Linux as-is today without it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512826</id>
	<title>Re:Well, let's see</title>
	<author>jimbolauski</author>
	<datestamp>1261415040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Open source will never go away, right now everyone thinks they can get rich and develop apps and charge for them.  Once the market becomes saturated with apps only a few will make decent money, the market will thin out, those apps will have limited functionality because they were written by one or two people the open-source apps will have a huge advantage in many more developers and they will start to take market share.  Open source will probably have a similar role as it does now in other markets not everyone's first choice but still a significant market share.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Open source will never go away , right now everyone thinks they can get rich and develop apps and charge for them .
Once the market becomes saturated with apps only a few will make decent money , the market will thin out , those apps will have limited functionality because they were written by one or two people the open-source apps will have a huge advantage in many more developers and they will start to take market share .
Open source will probably have a similar role as it does now in other markets not everyone 's first choice but still a significant market share .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Open source will never go away, right now everyone thinks they can get rich and develop apps and charge for them.
Once the market becomes saturated with apps only a few will make decent money, the market will thin out, those apps will have limited functionality because they were written by one or two people the open-source apps will have a huge advantage in many more developers and they will start to take market share.
Open source will probably have a similar role as it does now in other markets not everyone's first choice but still a significant market share.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512998</id>
	<title>Re:Well, let's see</title>
	<author>canajin56</author>
	<datestamp>1261415700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nope, RFTA.  It's not complaining about how the Android archetecture has proprietary parts, so you can't really change the system.  It's not.  TFA is complaining about how lots of apps in the Android App Store aren't GPL'd.  That's all, he wants Google to require them to be GPL.  This has nothing at all to do with the Android architecture.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nope , RFTA .
It 's not complaining about how the Android archetecture has proprietary parts , so you ca n't really change the system .
It 's not .
TFA is complaining about how lots of apps in the Android App Store are n't GPL 'd .
That 's all , he wants Google to require them to be GPL .
This has nothing at all to do with the Android architecture .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nope, RFTA.
It's not complaining about how the Android archetecture has proprietary parts, so you can't really change the system.
It's not.
TFA is complaining about how lots of apps in the Android App Store aren't GPL'd.
That's all, he wants Google to require them to be GPL.
This has nothing at all to do with the Android architecture.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512222</id>
	<title>We've gone long enough without real progress...</title>
	<author>rAiNsT0rm</author>
	<datestamp>1261411920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look, as much as all this Cathedral and Bazaar/Chaos crap sounds good in some righteous fight against the man, I've been using and helping to build Linux since 1995 and what we have sorely needed is some form of direction and vision. OS X has made such massive leaps and bounds with a relatively small number of developers because they have a solid vision and goal steering their efforts. We just flail about and continually eschew any sort of cohesive goal. It shows. Linus doesn't want to take control and everyone wants to claim that it is not needed, but amazingly the Kernel itself requires this type of management and oversight... and it is always the most progressive part of the whole. But what good is the best kernel without a supporting structure? It's time to either take the bull by the horns, or step back and allow a company like Google or Canonical to do it. Canonical and Ubuntu have floundered and have not come out as that entity even with the success in interest they garnered (like Red Hat before it), so it's time for another to try. I could care less who finally does it, just get it done!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look , as much as all this Cathedral and Bazaar/Chaos crap sounds good in some righteous fight against the man , I 've been using and helping to build Linux since 1995 and what we have sorely needed is some form of direction and vision .
OS X has made such massive leaps and bounds with a relatively small number of developers because they have a solid vision and goal steering their efforts .
We just flail about and continually eschew any sort of cohesive goal .
It shows .
Linus does n't want to take control and everyone wants to claim that it is not needed , but amazingly the Kernel itself requires this type of management and oversight... and it is always the most progressive part of the whole .
But what good is the best kernel without a supporting structure ?
It 's time to either take the bull by the horns , or step back and allow a company like Google or Canonical to do it .
Canonical and Ubuntu have floundered and have not come out as that entity even with the success in interest they garnered ( like Red Hat before it ) , so it 's time for another to try .
I could care less who finally does it , just get it done !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look, as much as all this Cathedral and Bazaar/Chaos crap sounds good in some righteous fight against the man, I've been using and helping to build Linux since 1995 and what we have sorely needed is some form of direction and vision.
OS X has made such massive leaps and bounds with a relatively small number of developers because they have a solid vision and goal steering their efforts.
We just flail about and continually eschew any sort of cohesive goal.
It shows.
Linus doesn't want to take control and everyone wants to claim that it is not needed, but amazingly the Kernel itself requires this type of management and oversight... and it is always the most progressive part of the whole.
But what good is the best kernel without a supporting structure?
It's time to either take the bull by the horns, or step back and allow a company like Google or Canonical to do it.
Canonical and Ubuntu have floundered and have not come out as that entity even with the success in interest they garnered (like Red Hat before it), so it's time for another to try.
I could care less who finally does it, just get it done!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513324</id>
	<title>Simple solution</title>
	<author>ssjskipp</author>
	<datestamp>1261417140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Developers that want their open source projects to only be used in other open source projects can just make it a part of their license. Then you're either paying for software written by the people selling it, or your running the open source and free apps that the developer's had in mind. This also lays the ground for developers that want to contribute components to open and closed source projects.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Developers that want their open source projects to only be used in other open source projects can just make it a part of their license .
Then you 're either paying for software written by the people selling it , or your running the open source and free apps that the developer 's had in mind .
This also lays the ground for developers that want to contribute components to open and closed source projects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Developers that want their open source projects to only be used in other open source projects can just make it a part of their license.
Then you're either paying for software written by the people selling it, or your running the open source and free apps that the developer's had in mind.
This also lays the ground for developers that want to contribute components to open and closed source projects.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512360</id>
	<title>There would be no FOSS without the fundamentalists</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261412760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't kid yourself. Without Stallman and his supporters there would have been no FSF, no GCC to compile free programmes, no utilities to facilitate the creation of the Linux Kernel and you would be paying top dollar for your Microsoft OS and applications. Before the Linux Kernel came along if you wanted in to UNIX you had to fork out serious money. Stallman, the FSF and Linux (that's why he wants you to call it GNU/Linux see, so that you get to know the history) changed all that in a fundamental way.</p><p>So sure, go ahead and say you are sick of those fundamentalists. What have you done to make it all happen? Nothing.</p><p>And incidentally, nobody is saying you shouldn't charge for software you write.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't kid yourself .
Without Stallman and his supporters there would have been no FSF , no GCC to compile free programmes , no utilities to facilitate the creation of the Linux Kernel and you would be paying top dollar for your Microsoft OS and applications .
Before the Linux Kernel came along if you wanted in to UNIX you had to fork out serious money .
Stallman , the FSF and Linux ( that 's why he wants you to call it GNU/Linux see , so that you get to know the history ) changed all that in a fundamental way.So sure , go ahead and say you are sick of those fundamentalists .
What have you done to make it all happen ?
Nothing.And incidentally , nobody is saying you should n't charge for software you write .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't kid yourself.
Without Stallman and his supporters there would have been no FSF, no GCC to compile free programmes, no utilities to facilitate the creation of the Linux Kernel and you would be paying top dollar for your Microsoft OS and applications.
Before the Linux Kernel came along if you wanted in to UNIX you had to fork out serious money.
Stallman, the FSF and Linux (that's why he wants you to call it GNU/Linux see, so that you get to know the history) changed all that in a fundamental way.So sure, go ahead and say you are sick of those fundamentalists.
What have you done to make it all happen?
Nothing.And incidentally, nobody is saying you shouldn't charge for software you write.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511948</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513290</id>
	<title>*CITATION NEEDED*</title>
	<author>Heem</author>
	<datestamp>1261416960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"But there's a problem: few of these Android apps are free software."  <b>*CITATION NEEDED*</b></p></div> </blockquote><p>Take a look in the app market. MANY of the apps are free, and there is usually a "just as good" free option for most pay apps.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" But there 's a problem : few of these Android apps are free software .
" * CITATION NEEDED * Take a look in the app market .
MANY of the apps are free , and there is usually a " just as good " free option for most pay apps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"But there's a problem: few of these Android apps are free software.
"  *CITATION NEEDED* Take a look in the app market.
MANY of the apps are free, and there is usually a "just as good" free option for most pay apps.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511994</id>
	<title>Santa can fix that!</title>
	<author>Rotten</author>
	<datestamp>1261410420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If he gets me an android-enabled phone this christmas.</p><p>Then i'll start writing free, open source, apps for it....but 'till then...my phone is too old for even thinking about writing apps for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If he gets me an android-enabled phone this christmas.Then i 'll start writing free , open source , apps for it....but 'till then...my phone is too old for even thinking about writing apps for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If he gets me an android-enabled phone this christmas.Then i'll start writing free, open source, apps for it....but 'till then...my phone is too old for even thinking about writing apps for it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512078</id>
	<title>Re:Android license</title>
	<author>c0d3g33k</author>
	<datestamp>1261410900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure that's relevant given the focus of TFA.  Apps running on Android devices are free to choose their own license, as far as I can tell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure that 's relevant given the focus of TFA .
Apps running on Android devices are free to choose their own license , as far as I can tell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure that's relevant given the focus of TFA.
Apps running on Android devices are free to choose their own license, as far as I can tell.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513138</id>
	<title>Re:Maemo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261416240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Android by default runs code in a java-like VM with limited capabilities.  Maemo runs binary executables directly within a linux kernel.  Getting a console in android requires effort.  In Maemo, you can just launch a console.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Android by default runs code in a java-like VM with limited capabilities .
Maemo runs binary executables directly within a linux kernel .
Getting a console in android requires effort .
In Maemo , you can just launch a console .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Android by default runs code in a java-like VM with limited capabilities.
Maemo runs binary executables directly within a linux kernel.
Getting a console in android requires effort.
In Maemo, you can just launch a console.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511910</id>
	<title>Not New: Apple's stack is hybrid too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261410000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is not news in any way. Apple's platforms (Mac and iPhone) have been successful for precisely the same reason. They exploit open source for the infrastructure (OS and developer tool chain) and layer proprietary applications on top for profitability.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is not news in any way .
Apple 's platforms ( Mac and iPhone ) have been successful for precisely the same reason .
They exploit open source for the infrastructure ( OS and developer tool chain ) and layer proprietary applications on top for profitability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is not news in any way.
Apple's platforms (Mac and iPhone) have been successful for precisely the same reason.
They exploit open source for the infrastructure (OS and developer tool chain) and layer proprietary applications on top for profitability.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30514012</id>
	<title>Re:Uh...build your own free app?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261420080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, this isn't an issue.  Software has to somehow "pay the bills" just like any other business.  Why our industry gets hung up on "free" and "open source" i just don't get.  My car costs money, the gas that goes in it costs money, my house costs money.  How am I supossed to pay for these things.  Ads? Ads only work if you have millions of impressions per day.  if you can get those millions of impressions per day, then great.  I've talked to several angel investors and the last thing they want to get into is an ad business.  Innovation takes money and time.  I'm really happy that people are selling their apps on Android and the iPhone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , this is n't an issue .
Software has to somehow " pay the bills " just like any other business .
Why our industry gets hung up on " free " and " open source " i just do n't get .
My car costs money , the gas that goes in it costs money , my house costs money .
How am I supossed to pay for these things .
Ads ? Ads only work if you have millions of impressions per day .
if you can get those millions of impressions per day , then great .
I 've talked to several angel investors and the last thing they want to get into is an ad business .
Innovation takes money and time .
I 'm really happy that people are selling their apps on Android and the iPhone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, this isn't an issue.
Software has to somehow "pay the bills" just like any other business.
Why our industry gets hung up on "free" and "open source" i just don't get.
My car costs money, the gas that goes in it costs money, my house costs money.
How am I supossed to pay for these things.
Ads? Ads only work if you have millions of impressions per day.
if you can get those millions of impressions per day, then great.
I've talked to several angel investors and the last thing they want to get into is an ad business.
Innovation takes money and time.
I'm really happy that people are selling their apps on Android and the iPhone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512320</id>
	<title>Re:Well, let's see</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261412460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google has shown lately that they are more likely to lean towards very permissive, BSD-type licenses than restrictive ones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google has shown lately that they are more likely to lean towards very permissive , BSD-type licenses than restrictive ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google has shown lately that they are more likely to lean towards very permissive, BSD-type licenses than restrictive ones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30515400</id>
	<title>What to do?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261426140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The same thing open source has always tried to do: write better open source alternatives.  If these apps are written open source and free more companies will standardize on them. and again, the whole bazaar development philosophy is supposed to allow the creation of better software, so if OS has the best solution, it should displace inferior proprietary apps.</p><p>That's all that can be done and that's all that should be done.  Anything else would seem to be admitting OS turns out inferior technology.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The same thing open source has always tried to do : write better open source alternatives .
If these apps are written open source and free more companies will standardize on them .
and again , the whole bazaar development philosophy is supposed to allow the creation of better software , so if OS has the best solution , it should displace inferior proprietary apps.That 's all that can be done and that 's all that should be done .
Anything else would seem to be admitting OS turns out inferior technology .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The same thing open source has always tried to do: write better open source alternatives.
If these apps are written open source and free more companies will standardize on them.
and again, the whole bazaar development philosophy is supposed to allow the creation of better software, so if OS has the best solution, it should displace inferior proprietary apps.That's all that can be done and that's all that should be done.
Anything else would seem to be admitting OS turns out inferior technology.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30515496</id>
	<title>Re:No enlightened self-interest in fart apps</title>
	<author>Reverend528</author>
	<datestamp>1261426560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Nerds aren't good at writing software for non-nerds.</p></div></blockquote><p>But non-nerds aren't good at writing software for anyone.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nerds are n't good at writing software for non-nerds.But non-nerds are n't good at writing software for anyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nerds aren't good at writing software for non-nerds.But non-nerds aren't good at writing software for anyone.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512258</id>
	<title>Re:Not New: Apple's stack is hybrid too</title>
	<author>stakovahflow</author>
	<datestamp>1261412160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Apple OS X &amp; iPhone/iPod Touch use a FreeBSD base, mixed with proprietary code... But there is a slight difference, the BSD license basically says "Here. Take this. Just give credit to the guys who wrote this great piece of software and take it. Do with it what you will..." This method has worked very well for the BSD's thus far (using Apple --and Google-- as a funding contributor, et c.). It's a fairly new concept to the Linux community, though. Linux is generally seen, mainly because of its licensing (GPL1, 2, or 3), as more limited. This, too, is a miscalculation. The GPL variants out there, are really fairly liberal, if not communist. As long as Google allows the distribution of the source code for all the open source code used, there will not be a compliance issue. What's the harm in allowing Google to use the same structure as Apple, in regard to software, licensing, development, et c? Apple contributes to the community, in however limited ways, Google does the same, but in many other areas. How is this all so horrible? It's just business, isn't it, fellas?

--Stak</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple OS X &amp; iPhone/iPod Touch use a FreeBSD base , mixed with proprietary code... But there is a slight difference , the BSD license basically says " Here .
Take this .
Just give credit to the guys who wrote this great piece of software and take it .
Do with it what you will... " This method has worked very well for the BSD 's thus far ( using Apple --and Google-- as a funding contributor , et c. ) .
It 's a fairly new concept to the Linux community , though .
Linux is generally seen , mainly because of its licensing ( GPL1 , 2 , or 3 ) , as more limited .
This , too , is a miscalculation .
The GPL variants out there , are really fairly liberal , if not communist .
As long as Google allows the distribution of the source code for all the open source code used , there will not be a compliance issue .
What 's the harm in allowing Google to use the same structure as Apple , in regard to software , licensing , development , et c ?
Apple contributes to the community , in however limited ways , Google does the same , but in many other areas .
How is this all so horrible ?
It 's just business , is n't it , fellas ?
--Stak</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple OS X &amp; iPhone/iPod Touch use a FreeBSD base, mixed with proprietary code... But there is a slight difference, the BSD license basically says "Here.
Take this.
Just give credit to the guys who wrote this great piece of software and take it.
Do with it what you will..." This method has worked very well for the BSD's thus far (using Apple --and Google-- as a funding contributor, et c.).
It's a fairly new concept to the Linux community, though.
Linux is generally seen, mainly because of its licensing (GPL1, 2, or 3), as more limited.
This, too, is a miscalculation.
The GPL variants out there, are really fairly liberal, if not communist.
As long as Google allows the distribution of the source code for all the open source code used, there will not be a compliance issue.
What's the harm in allowing Google to use the same structure as Apple, in regard to software, licensing, development, et c?
Apple contributes to the community, in however limited ways, Google does the same, but in many other areas.
How is this all so horrible?
It's just business, isn't it, fellas?
--Stak</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512244</id>
	<title>Re:Uh...build your own free app?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261412040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly! How in the world can the platform be at fault just because open source developers have not jumped onto it yet. </p><p>This posting is just trying to create a controversy out of thin air. Must be a slow news day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly !
How in the world can the platform be at fault just because open source developers have not jumped onto it yet .
This posting is just trying to create a controversy out of thin air .
Must be a slow news day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly!
How in the world can the platform be at fault just because open source developers have not jumped onto it yet.
This posting is just trying to create a controversy out of thin air.
Must be a slow news day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512070</id>
	<title>flawed premise</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261410840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>mobile phones will become the main computing platform for most of the world</p></div><p>No!. phones won't be the main computing platform. They're far too small, limited, have terrible human-input interfaces, too small screens and puny batteries. What we probably will see is devices that incorporate phones, storage, decent screens and the like. These will just use the phone as another networking interface and will be "proper" computers in their own right (probably running "Linux-mobile" or somesuch). There will be no reason why these devices can't or won't run paid-for or free applications - provided someone writes them<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>mobile phones will become the main computing platform for most of the worldNo ! .
phones wo n't be the main computing platform .
They 're far too small , limited , have terrible human-input interfaces , too small screens and puny batteries .
What we probably will see is devices that incorporate phones , storage , decent screens and the like .
These will just use the phone as another networking interface and will be " proper " computers in their own right ( probably running " Linux-mobile " or somesuch ) .
There will be no reason why these devices ca n't or wo n't run paid-for or free applications - provided someone writes them .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mobile phones will become the main computing platform for most of the worldNo!.
phones won't be the main computing platform.
They're far too small, limited, have terrible human-input interfaces, too small screens and puny batteries.
What we probably will see is devices that incorporate phones, storage, decent screens and the like.
These will just use the phone as another networking interface and will be "proper" computers in their own right (probably running "Linux-mobile" or somesuch).
There will be no reason why these devices can't or won't run paid-for or free applications - provided someone writes them ...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30519818</id>
	<title>yada</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261410960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A damn slow news day indeed!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A damn slow news day indeed !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A damn slow news day indeed!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511866</id>
	<title>Uh...build your own free app?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261409760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't see the problem.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see the problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see the problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30514768</id>
	<title>It's about time...</title>
	<author>argent</author>
	<datestamp>1261423440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the Linux community had taken the necessary steps to promote a proprietary software ecosystem on top of Linux, then Linux would have at least 20\% of the desktop market by now. Instead, the job of delivering an OS that doesn't suck that supports software that doesn't suck has fallen to Apple... who have done a damn good job of it, with a software packaging scheme that's perfect for commercial binary software. If not for the high price of Apple hardware, it would be well on its way to wiping Windows from the home desktop.</p><p>It's not too late. Let's see a good solid well-supported Linux desktop, using GNUstep or equivalent with NeXT-style application bundles instead of Linux' maze of centralized repositories and tricky packaging schemes. It's far more important to get a free software platform out there on people's desks than to demand they all buy in to the free software ethos for the applications they run on it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the Linux community had taken the necessary steps to promote a proprietary software ecosystem on top of Linux , then Linux would have at least 20 \ % of the desktop market by now .
Instead , the job of delivering an OS that does n't suck that supports software that does n't suck has fallen to Apple... who have done a damn good job of it , with a software packaging scheme that 's perfect for commercial binary software .
If not for the high price of Apple hardware , it would be well on its way to wiping Windows from the home desktop.It 's not too late .
Let 's see a good solid well-supported Linux desktop , using GNUstep or equivalent with NeXT-style application bundles instead of Linux ' maze of centralized repositories and tricky packaging schemes .
It 's far more important to get a free software platform out there on people 's desks than to demand they all buy in to the free software ethos for the applications they run on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the Linux community had taken the necessary steps to promote a proprietary software ecosystem on top of Linux, then Linux would have at least 20\% of the desktop market by now.
Instead, the job of delivering an OS that doesn't suck that supports software that doesn't suck has fallen to Apple... who have done a damn good job of it, with a software packaging scheme that's perfect for commercial binary software.
If not for the high price of Apple hardware, it would be well on its way to wiping Windows from the home desktop.It's not too late.
Let's see a good solid well-supported Linux desktop, using GNUstep or equivalent with NeXT-style application bundles instead of Linux' maze of centralized repositories and tricky packaging schemes.
It's far more important to get a free software platform out there on people's desks than to demand they all buy in to the free software ethos for the applications they run on it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30517014</id>
	<title>Re:Okay, I'll be the one to say it...</title>
	<author>ShakaUVM</author>
	<datestamp>1261390980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;Ummm... writing good, foss apps to do the things you need/want to do? Seems obvious.</p><p>Can't wait to put OpenSSH on my Android phone.</p><p>Why should iPhone users be the only ones who get lucky enough to be rootkitted? I want to spam my Facebook friends about colon cleansers, too!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; Ummm... writing good , foss apps to do the things you need/want to do ?
Seems obvious.Ca n't wait to put OpenSSH on my Android phone.Why should iPhone users be the only ones who get lucky enough to be rootkitted ?
I want to spam my Facebook friends about colon cleansers , too !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;Ummm... writing good, foss apps to do the things you need/want to do?
Seems obvious.Can't wait to put OpenSSH on my Android phone.Why should iPhone users be the only ones who get lucky enough to be rootkitted?
I want to spam my Facebook friends about colon cleansers, too!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513672</id>
	<title>Re:Actually, summary is wrong.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261418580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not free in the "libre" sense...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not free in the " libre " sense.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not free in the "libre" sense...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512128</id>
	<title>Re:Okay, I'll be the one to say it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261411320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or support the N900 instead of the Android.  It's not a totally open stack, but it's much more so than Android, and the apps also tend to be direct ports of Linux OSS.  And the whole thing is less locked down to begin with.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or support the N900 instead of the Android .
It 's not a totally open stack , but it 's much more so than Android , and the apps also tend to be direct ports of Linux OSS .
And the whole thing is less locked down to begin with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or support the N900 instead of the Android.
It's not a totally open stack, but it's much more so than Android, and the apps also tend to be direct ports of Linux OSS.
And the whole thing is less locked down to begin with.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512094</id>
	<title>No it doesn't</title>
	<author>C\_Kode</author>
	<datestamp>1261411020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Commercial software is what leads to open source software in many cases.  When someone makes an app that you have to pay for, someone else will write one that you don't.  MySQL was not first, it was the answer for those that couldn't afford Oracle, DB2, etc.</p><p>Most open source programmers enjoy programming.  One will see a need and fill it with their own project.  The more people that want that need filled, the more projects and higher quality projects we will see.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Commercial software is what leads to open source software in many cases .
When someone makes an app that you have to pay for , someone else will write one that you do n't .
MySQL was not first , it was the answer for those that could n't afford Oracle , DB2 , etc.Most open source programmers enjoy programming .
One will see a need and fill it with their own project .
The more people that want that need filled , the more projects and higher quality projects we will see .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Commercial software is what leads to open source software in many cases.
When someone makes an app that you have to pay for, someone else will write one that you don't.
MySQL was not first, it was the answer for those that couldn't afford Oracle, DB2, etc.Most open source programmers enjoy programming.
One will see a need and fill it with their own project.
The more people that want that need filled, the more projects and higher quality projects we will see.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513580</id>
	<title>Re:There would be no FOSS without the fundamentali</title>
	<author>Voyager529</author>
	<datestamp>1261418220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>you would be paying top dollar for your Microsoft OS and applications</p></div><p>I do pay top dollar for my Microsoft OS and applications, you insensitive clod! And I'm very happy with my stable software pla@#\%[NO CARRIER]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>you would be paying top dollar for your Microsoft OS and applicationsI do pay top dollar for my Microsoft OS and applications , you insensitive clod !
And I 'm very happy with my stable software pla @ # \ % [ NO CARRIER ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you would be paying top dollar for your Microsoft OS and applicationsI do pay top dollar for my Microsoft OS and applications, you insensitive clod!
And I'm very happy with my stable software pla@#\%[NO CARRIER]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512512</id>
	<title>Re:Okay, I'll be the one to say it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261413480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sadly, just like the desktop market, for the same reasons you just said, FOSS apps will be crappy on the phone too, since it'll just be people scratching an itch with very little motivation to make a good general product for others.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sadly , just like the desktop market , for the same reasons you just said , FOSS apps will be crappy on the phone too , since it 'll just be people scratching an itch with very little motivation to make a good general product for others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sadly, just like the desktop market, for the same reasons you just said, FOSS apps will be crappy on the phone too, since it'll just be people scratching an itch with very little motivation to make a good general product for others.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30514156</id>
	<title>Re:Okay, I'll be the one to say it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261420740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Care to elaborate on what parts of android are not open, and in what way is N900 less locked down?</p><p>Your post is less informative than it is declarative.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Care to elaborate on what parts of android are not open , and in what way is N900 less locked down ? Your post is less informative than it is declarative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Care to elaborate on what parts of android are not open, and in what way is N900 less locked down?Your post is less informative than it is declarative.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512128</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513866</id>
	<title>Re:Okay, I'll be the one to say it...</title>
	<author>SecurityGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1261419480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or better yet, just buy the app that does what you want.</p><p>Really, people.  This is rather ridiculous.  ZOMG, someone wrote a proprietary app that runs on a F/OSS platform!!!!11  You mean, just like Linux?  The problem is what exactly?</p><p>And newsflash:  If someone is selling an app for a couple bucks and it does something useful, just buy the damn thing.  Spending a few $k in your time to do it for "free" is rather stupid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or better yet , just buy the app that does what you want.Really , people .
This is rather ridiculous .
ZOMG , someone wrote a proprietary app that runs on a F/OSS platform ! ! !
! 11 You mean , just like Linux ?
The problem is what exactly ? And newsflash : If someone is selling an app for a couple bucks and it does something useful , just buy the damn thing .
Spending a few $ k in your time to do it for " free " is rather stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or better yet, just buy the app that does what you want.Really, people.
This is rather ridiculous.
ZOMG, someone wrote a proprietary app that runs on a F/OSS platform!!!
!11  You mean, just like Linux?
The problem is what exactly?And newsflash:  If someone is selling an app for a couple bucks and it does something useful, just buy the damn thing.
Spending a few $k in your time to do it for "free" is rather stupid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512228</id>
	<title>Re:Okay, I'll be the one to say it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261411980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly. The reason the paid apps succeed is because people pay for them. Weekend developers of free apps generally can't keep up with paid apps. I recently tried to find an open-source alternative to quicken... epic fail. Oh sure, such-and-such an app may contain all the same functionality on paper, but usability, polish, and design are usually absent from FOSS. Please note, I said usually. So the main point of the OP that I want to reiterate, "<b>good</b>, foss apps." (emphasis mine).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
The reason the paid apps succeed is because people pay for them .
Weekend developers of free apps generally ca n't keep up with paid apps .
I recently tried to find an open-source alternative to quicken... epic fail .
Oh sure , such-and-such an app may contain all the same functionality on paper , but usability , polish , and design are usually absent from FOSS .
Please note , I said usually .
So the main point of the OP that I want to reiterate , " good , foss apps .
" ( emphasis mine ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
The reason the paid apps succeed is because people pay for them.
Weekend developers of free apps generally can't keep up with paid apps.
I recently tried to find an open-source alternative to quicken... epic fail.
Oh sure, such-and-such an app may contain all the same functionality on paper, but usability, polish, and design are usually absent from FOSS.
Please note, I said usually.
So the main point of the OP that I want to reiterate, "good, foss apps.
" (emphasis mine).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513176</id>
	<title>Re:Well, let's see</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261416420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're so wrong it's not even funny. I advise you to read Stallman's essay <a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html" title="gnu.org">Why &ldquo;Free Software&rdquo; is better than &ldquo;Open Source&rdquo;</a> [gnu.org]. Here's a quote from the essay that gets to the essence of what we're talking about here:</p><blockquote><div><p>The fundamental difference between the two movements is in their values, their ways of looking at the world. For the Open Source movement, the issue of whether software should be open source is a practical question, not an ethical one. As one person put it, &ldquo;Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement.&rdquo; For the Open Source movement, non-free software is a suboptimal solution. For the Free Software movement, non-free software is a social problem and free software is the solution.</p></div></blockquote><p>As I understand it to Stallman the primary goal of Free Software is not "better software" in terms of say stability, usability etc., it's "better" in the sense that it's the most ethical.</p><p>P.S.</p><p>I'd like to point out that I personally don't think Stallman is entirely correct in his description of the Open Source movement, as the goal of Open Source has always been the same as Free Software (among other things see Bruce Peren's <a href="http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1999/02/msg01641.html" title="debian.org">"It's Time to Talk About Free Software Again"</a> [debian.org]). However, regretfully the term Open Source has in a lot of cases, as evidenced from this entire discussion, become diluted.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're so wrong it 's not even funny .
I advise you to read Stallman 's essay Why    Free Software    is better than    Open Source    [ gnu.org ] .
Here 's a quote from the essay that gets to the essence of what we 're talking about here : The fundamental difference between the two movements is in their values , their ways of looking at the world .
For the Open Source movement , the issue of whether software should be open source is a practical question , not an ethical one .
As one person put it ,    Open source is a development methodology ; free software is a social movement.    For the Open Source movement , non-free software is a suboptimal solution .
For the Free Software movement , non-free software is a social problem and free software is the solution.As I understand it to Stallman the primary goal of Free Software is not " better software " in terms of say stability , usability etc. , it 's " better " in the sense that it 's the most ethical.P.S.I 'd like to point out that I personally do n't think Stallman is entirely correct in his description of the Open Source movement , as the goal of Open Source has always been the same as Free Software ( among other things see Bruce Peren 's " It 's Time to Talk About Free Software Again " [ debian.org ] ) .
However , regretfully the term Open Source has in a lot of cases , as evidenced from this entire discussion , become diluted .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're so wrong it's not even funny.
I advise you to read Stallman's essay Why “Free Software” is better than “Open Source” [gnu.org].
Here's a quote from the essay that gets to the essence of what we're talking about here:The fundamental difference between the two movements is in their values, their ways of looking at the world.
For the Open Source movement, the issue of whether software should be open source is a practical question, not an ethical one.
As one person put it, “Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement.” For the Open Source movement, non-free software is a suboptimal solution.
For the Free Software movement, non-free software is a social problem and free software is the solution.As I understand it to Stallman the primary goal of Free Software is not "better software" in terms of say stability, usability etc., it's "better" in the sense that it's the most ethical.P.S.I'd like to point out that I personally don't think Stallman is entirely correct in his description of the Open Source movement, as the goal of Open Source has always been the same as Free Software (among other things see Bruce Peren's "It's Time to Talk About Free Software Again" [debian.org]).
However, regretfully the term Open Source has in a lot of cases, as evidenced from this entire discussion, become diluted.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513956</id>
	<title>Re:Well, let's see</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1261419900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The point of open source and free software is that it's supposed to be better than proprietary. It's supposed to win on merit</p></div><p>It depends on whom you ask. According to Stallman (and consequently FSF), free software isn't necessarily better as software; it's better simply because it's Free.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The point of open source and free software is that it 's supposed to be better than proprietary .
It 's supposed to win on meritIt depends on whom you ask .
According to Stallman ( and consequently FSF ) , free software is n't necessarily better as software ; it 's better simply because it 's Free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The point of open source and free software is that it's supposed to be better than proprietary.
It's supposed to win on meritIt depends on whom you ask.
According to Stallman (and consequently FSF), free software isn't necessarily better as software; it's better simply because it's Free.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511916</id>
	<title>This is silly</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261410060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Its like saying that Linux is a threat to feee software because you can run commercial applications. Surley the key to it taking off is having a mix of free and commercial applications.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Its like saying that Linux is a threat to feee software because you can run commercial applications .
Surley the key to it taking off is having a mix of free and commercial applications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its like saying that Linux is a threat to feee software because you can run commercial applications.
Surley the key to it taking off is having a mix of free and commercial applications.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512950</id>
	<title>Re:How is this different from the status quo?</title>
	<author>zotz</author>
	<datestamp>1261415520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The point is, that while there is public consensus on the use of open source for infrastructure, there is no similar enthusiasm for viral obligations nor is there any interest in opening up the value-add/secret sauce on the top of the stack."</p><p>Are you sure the consensus you speak of exists?</p><p>That said, the secret sauce model denies the Open Source theory on the face of it and certainly is not in accord with the Free Software theory.</p><p><a href="http://zotzbro.blogspot.com/2009/12/open-core-model-and-software-quality.html" title="blogspot.com">Open Core Model and Software Quality - the Open Software Take</a> [blogspot.com]</p><p>all the best,</p><p>drew</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The point is , that while there is public consensus on the use of open source for infrastructure , there is no similar enthusiasm for viral obligations nor is there any interest in opening up the value-add/secret sauce on the top of the stack .
" Are you sure the consensus you speak of exists ? That said , the secret sauce model denies the Open Source theory on the face of it and certainly is not in accord with the Free Software theory.Open Core Model and Software Quality - the Open Software Take [ blogspot.com ] all the best,drew</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The point is, that while there is public consensus on the use of open source for infrastructure, there is no similar enthusiasm for viral obligations nor is there any interest in opening up the value-add/secret sauce on the top of the stack.
"Are you sure the consensus you speak of exists?That said, the secret sauce model denies the Open Source theory on the face of it and certainly is not in accord with the Free Software theory.Open Core Model and Software Quality - the Open Software Take [blogspot.com]all the best,drew</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512468</id>
	<title>How much do phones really matter?</title>
	<author>Angst Badger</author>
	<datestamp>1261413240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If, as many believe, mobile phones will become the main computing platform for most of the world [...]</p></div><p>Aside from sheer numbers, I'm not sure that actually means anything. Of the twenty or so applications I use most commonly on my PC, <i>none</i> of them would translate to a phone in any useful way, mostly because of the lack of a full-sized monitor and keyboard. How much gets done on mobile phones -- other than talking and texting -- that would materially affect anything of consequence if it suddenly stopped?</p><p>The main threat to FOSS is a broad failure to capitalize on its potential strengths because too much FOSS development is devoted to playing a rather childish game of imitating commercial software development -- a curious choice, considering that the shoddiness of commercial software was one of the driving forces behind the emergence of FOSS. What people are using on their <i>phones</i> has about as much importance as what's running inside the control box for your HVAC system.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If , as many believe , mobile phones will become the main computing platform for most of the world [ ... ] Aside from sheer numbers , I 'm not sure that actually means anything .
Of the twenty or so applications I use most commonly on my PC , none of them would translate to a phone in any useful way , mostly because of the lack of a full-sized monitor and keyboard .
How much gets done on mobile phones -- other than talking and texting -- that would materially affect anything of consequence if it suddenly stopped ? The main threat to FOSS is a broad failure to capitalize on its potential strengths because too much FOSS development is devoted to playing a rather childish game of imitating commercial software development -- a curious choice , considering that the shoddiness of commercial software was one of the driving forces behind the emergence of FOSS .
What people are using on their phones has about as much importance as what 's running inside the control box for your HVAC system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If, as many believe, mobile phones will become the main computing platform for most of the world [...]Aside from sheer numbers, I'm not sure that actually means anything.
Of the twenty or so applications I use most commonly on my PC, none of them would translate to a phone in any useful way, mostly because of the lack of a full-sized monitor and keyboard.
How much gets done on mobile phones -- other than talking and texting -- that would materially affect anything of consequence if it suddenly stopped?The main threat to FOSS is a broad failure to capitalize on its potential strengths because too much FOSS development is devoted to playing a rather childish game of imitating commercial software development -- a curious choice, considering that the shoddiness of commercial software was one of the driving forces behind the emergence of FOSS.
What people are using on their phones has about as much importance as what's running inside the control box for your HVAC system.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513620</id>
	<title>Re:Actually, summary is wrong.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261418400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And THAT is why the term "Free Software" should be capitalized!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And THAT is why the term " Free Software " should be capitalized !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And THAT is why the term "Free Software" should be capitalized!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511902</id>
	<title>Well, let's see</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1261409940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The community" could come up with a very restrictive license that doesn't allow that sort of thing, which Google et. al. will just not use anyway.</p><p>The point of open source and free software is that it's supposed to be <i>better</i> than proprietary.  It's supposed to win on merit, not restrictive licensing or "the community" trying to force things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The community " could come up with a very restrictive license that does n't allow that sort of thing , which Google et .
al. will just not use anyway.The point of open source and free software is that it 's supposed to be better than proprietary .
It 's supposed to win on merit , not restrictive licensing or " the community " trying to force things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The community" could come up with a very restrictive license that doesn't allow that sort of thing, which Google et.
al. will just not use anyway.The point of open source and free software is that it's supposed to be better than proprietary.
It's supposed to win on merit, not restrictive licensing or "the community" trying to force things.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30517068</id>
	<title>Re:We've gone long enough without real progress...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261391220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here you have this huge group of volunteers, who have all rejected the dictatorships that are Microsoft and Apple. And you claim the what we need the most is to have someone take the same kind of control here? The kind of control that we are running away from.</p><p>Are you a BSD advocate, trying to get us to jump OS?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here you have this huge group of volunteers , who have all rejected the dictatorships that are Microsoft and Apple .
And you claim the what we need the most is to have someone take the same kind of control here ?
The kind of control that we are running away from.Are you a BSD advocate , trying to get us to jump OS ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here you have this huge group of volunteers, who have all rejected the dictatorships that are Microsoft and Apple.
And you claim the what we need the most is to have someone take the same kind of control here?
The kind of control that we are running away from.Are you a BSD advocate, trying to get us to jump OS?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511926</id>
	<title>no different than before</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261410060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's no different from desktops, where 98\% run Windows or OSX, and 2\% run Linux or FreeBSD or some other open environment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's no different from desktops , where 98 \ % run Windows or OSX , and 2 \ % run Linux or FreeBSD or some other open environment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's no different from desktops, where 98\% run Windows or OSX, and 2\% run Linux or FreeBSD or some other open environment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30517054</id>
	<title>Hero with Android</title>
	<author>32771</author>
	<datestamp>1261391160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just played around with my Hero and found that underneath is no Linux distribution I would like to have. As soon as you get root access you have a security issue at your hands. In other words I'm still trying to find something like a passwd or shadow file since su lets me get straight to root.</p><p>Conversely I keep hearing that the n900 one of my colleagues just got has a debian running underneath -sounds much better to me.</p><p>Also the file system has been reorganized into something that doesn't follow the Linux file system standard. I wouldn't mind if they had put android+htc stuff on top of an existing distribution I can recognize, but no they had to do it all differently.</p><p>I do find the android stuff nice though. It works straight out of the box together with eclipse and you can use you phone as a target without much effort. I really find this kind of welcoming to new developers.</p><p>Now I heard that i can install debian and maybe use it through chroot or something similar, I still wonder whether somebody couldn't come up with a firmware that has android running on top of debian.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just played around with my Hero and found that underneath is no Linux distribution I would like to have .
As soon as you get root access you have a security issue at your hands .
In other words I 'm still trying to find something like a passwd or shadow file since su lets me get straight to root.Conversely I keep hearing that the n900 one of my colleagues just got has a debian running underneath -sounds much better to me.Also the file system has been reorganized into something that does n't follow the Linux file system standard .
I would n't mind if they had put android + htc stuff on top of an existing distribution I can recognize , but no they had to do it all differently.I do find the android stuff nice though .
It works straight out of the box together with eclipse and you can use you phone as a target without much effort .
I really find this kind of welcoming to new developers.Now I heard that i can install debian and maybe use it through chroot or something similar , I still wonder whether somebody could n't come up with a firmware that has android running on top of debian .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just played around with my Hero and found that underneath is no Linux distribution I would like to have.
As soon as you get root access you have a security issue at your hands.
In other words I'm still trying to find something like a passwd or shadow file since su lets me get straight to root.Conversely I keep hearing that the n900 one of my colleagues just got has a debian running underneath -sounds much better to me.Also the file system has been reorganized into something that doesn't follow the Linux file system standard.
I wouldn't mind if they had put android+htc stuff on top of an existing distribution I can recognize, but no they had to do it all differently.I do find the android stuff nice though.
It works straight out of the box together with eclipse and you can use you phone as a target without much effort.
I really find this kind of welcoming to new developers.Now I heard that i can install debian and maybe use it through chroot or something similar, I still wonder whether somebody couldn't come up with a firmware that has android running on top of debian.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512296</id>
	<title>Seriously?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261412280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Linux has always had proprietary aps as far as I know. My first experience with Linux (not very long ago) was, after compiling level 1 Gentoo (ug... not a good intro IMO, I really wish I could get those 2 days back), was putting MatLab on it, and getting the site license linked properly (as well as setting up a local copy of the license to work when the net was down and setting a cron job to sync the two when up, not sure if that was technically legal, but it sure worked better).</p><p>I developed software (at university) on linux, in MatLab. There is nothing wrong IMO with prop. software on a Free OS.</p><p>In a seriously ironic twist the software developed was GPL, so we made Free software that ran in a proprietary interpreter on a Free OS.<br>My adviser also ran Cygwin in Windows running in a VM under Gentoo, I still have to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/sigh at that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Linux has always had proprietary aps as far as I know .
My first experience with Linux ( not very long ago ) was , after compiling level 1 Gentoo ( ug... not a good intro IMO , I really wish I could get those 2 days back ) , was putting MatLab on it , and getting the site license linked properly ( as well as setting up a local copy of the license to work when the net was down and setting a cron job to sync the two when up , not sure if that was technically legal , but it sure worked better ) .I developed software ( at university ) on linux , in MatLab .
There is nothing wrong IMO with prop .
software on a Free OS.In a seriously ironic twist the software developed was GPL , so we made Free software that ran in a proprietary interpreter on a Free OS.My adviser also ran Cygwin in Windows running in a VM under Gentoo , I still have to /sigh at that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linux has always had proprietary aps as far as I know.
My first experience with Linux (not very long ago) was, after compiling level 1 Gentoo (ug... not a good intro IMO, I really wish I could get those 2 days back), was putting MatLab on it, and getting the site license linked properly (as well as setting up a local copy of the license to work when the net was down and setting a cron job to sync the two when up, not sure if that was technically legal, but it sure worked better).I developed software (at university) on linux, in MatLab.
There is nothing wrong IMO with prop.
software on a Free OS.In a seriously ironic twist the software developed was GPL, so we made Free software that ran in a proprietary interpreter on a Free OS.My adviser also ran Cygwin in Windows running in a VM under Gentoo, I still have to /sigh at that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30514728</id>
	<title>Re:We've gone long enough without real progress...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261423260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No progress? The amount of progress that has been made since I became a linux user in '97 is nothing short of incredible. In every single aspect of computing.</p><p>Are you complaining about the lack of progress over the past week or something?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No progress ?
The amount of progress that has been made since I became a linux user in '97 is nothing short of incredible .
In every single aspect of computing.Are you complaining about the lack of progress over the past week or something ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No progress?
The amount of progress that has been made since I became a linux user in '97 is nothing short of incredible.
In every single aspect of computing.Are you complaining about the lack of progress over the past week or something?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513234</id>
	<title>It's always something.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261416660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This reminds me of all those years of people complaining that linux was too divided, and now that Ubuntu is the only Free desktop anybody cares about, the 'community' can't take it.  I love being able to choose proprietary apps in the market, it's one of the things that makes Android Market superior to the Ubuntu Software Center, and I hope to see the latter gain such functionality soon.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This reminds me of all those years of people complaining that linux was too divided , and now that Ubuntu is the only Free desktop anybody cares about , the 'community ' ca n't take it .
I love being able to choose proprietary apps in the market , it 's one of the things that makes Android Market superior to the Ubuntu Software Center , and I hope to see the latter gain such functionality soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This reminds me of all those years of people complaining that linux was too divided, and now that Ubuntu is the only Free desktop anybody cares about, the 'community' can't take it.
I love being able to choose proprietary apps in the market, it's one of the things that makes Android Market superior to the Ubuntu Software Center, and I hope to see the latter gain such functionality soon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513048</id>
	<title>Re:Okay, I'll be the one to say it...</title>
	<author>bluefoxlucid</author>
	<datestamp>1261415940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's a funny property of OSS.  When you have a single-person project, it's basically a personal toy that fits one person's need.  When you have something large, like GIMP or GNOME, they start looking at the userbase and delegating tasks around trying to solve interesting problems.  It may be that the developers can't implement their pet features and instead need to agree on something, so they deflect the whole argument to "Well feature X is an important feature in general to the userbase."</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's a funny property of OSS .
When you have a single-person project , it 's basically a personal toy that fits one person 's need .
When you have something large , like GIMP or GNOME , they start looking at the userbase and delegating tasks around trying to solve interesting problems .
It may be that the developers ca n't implement their pet features and instead need to agree on something , so they deflect the whole argument to " Well feature X is an important feature in general to the userbase .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's a funny property of OSS.
When you have a single-person project, it's basically a personal toy that fits one person's need.
When you have something large, like GIMP or GNOME, they start looking at the userbase and delegating tasks around trying to solve interesting problems.
It may be that the developers can't implement their pet features and instead need to agree on something, so they deflect the whole argument to "Well feature X is an important feature in general to the userbase.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512512</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30516042</id>
	<title>Re:There would be no FOSS without the fundamentali</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261386240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hate to say it, but I do agree with you here.  Had GNU's tools not existed, I doubt development effort on the Linux or Jolitz's 386BSD kernels back in 1991 would have gone even as remotely as far as they have.</p><p>I remember when compilers would cost thousands in addition to the OS itself.  SunOS's compiler (this was before the Solaris 2.x days) cost a pretty penny.  Intel's compiler cost a good chunk of change.  Until the late 90s, compiles never came with the OS, and were a chargable extra, usually with nasty licensing (nodelocking on CPU serial numbers, or FlexLM based licensing.)</p><p>If it were not for gcc, I'm sure the development of Linux, and the free software movement as a whole would have taken a completely different direction.  Without gcc, there would have been no cross platform compiler enabling people to easily get code ported between platforms, and I don't see any group who would have had something similar without some sort of commercial licensing issues.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hate to say it , but I do agree with you here .
Had GNU 's tools not existed , I doubt development effort on the Linux or Jolitz 's 386BSD kernels back in 1991 would have gone even as remotely as far as they have.I remember when compilers would cost thousands in addition to the OS itself .
SunOS 's compiler ( this was before the Solaris 2.x days ) cost a pretty penny .
Intel 's compiler cost a good chunk of change .
Until the late 90s , compiles never came with the OS , and were a chargable extra , usually with nasty licensing ( nodelocking on CPU serial numbers , or FlexLM based licensing .
) If it were not for gcc , I 'm sure the development of Linux , and the free software movement as a whole would have taken a completely different direction .
Without gcc , there would have been no cross platform compiler enabling people to easily get code ported between platforms , and I do n't see any group who would have had something similar without some sort of commercial licensing issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hate to say it, but I do agree with you here.
Had GNU's tools not existed, I doubt development effort on the Linux or Jolitz's 386BSD kernels back in 1991 would have gone even as remotely as far as they have.I remember when compilers would cost thousands in addition to the OS itself.
SunOS's compiler (this was before the Solaris 2.x days) cost a pretty penny.
Intel's compiler cost a good chunk of change.
Until the late 90s, compiles never came with the OS, and were a chargable extra, usually with nasty licensing (nodelocking on CPU serial numbers, or FlexLM based licensing.
)If it were not for gcc, I'm sure the development of Linux, and the free software movement as a whole would have taken a completely different direction.
Without gcc, there would have been no cross platform compiler enabling people to easily get code ported between platforms, and I don't see any group who would have had something similar without some sort of commercial licensing issues.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512360</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30521690</id>
	<title>Re:Maemo</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1261476240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, unfortunately. A byproduct of times when US carriers went with RAZR because Nokia didn't want to allow to castrate its phones; so they didn't get much presence.</p><p>Who knows how much similar factors are at play here. It seems like reliably getting OS upgrades might end up hard for too many Android phones; plays nicely with planned obsolescence, tying people to contracts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , unfortunately .
A byproduct of times when US carriers went with RAZR because Nokia did n't want to allow to castrate its phones ; so they did n't get much presence.Who knows how much similar factors are at play here .
It seems like reliably getting OS upgrades might end up hard for too many Android phones ; plays nicely with planned obsolescence , tying people to contracts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, unfortunately.
A byproduct of times when US carriers went with RAZR because Nokia didn't want to allow to castrate its phones; so they didn't get much presence.Who knows how much similar factors are at play here.
It seems like reliably getting OS upgrades might end up hard for too many Android phones; plays nicely with planned obsolescence, tying people to contracts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513392</id>
	<title>Witnessing the birth?  Full grown already.</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1261417440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Instead, we seem to be witnessing the birth of a new hybrid stack -- open source underneath, and proprietary on top.</i></p><p>Gee, it's not like anyone's <a href="http://www.openbsd.org/" title="openbsd.org">done </a> [openbsd.org]  <a href="http://developer.apple.com/Darwin/" title="apple.com">that</a> [apple.com] before...</p><p>There's nothing at all wrong with proprietary layers somewhere in the next - in theory all open source is preferable for a lot of reasons, but there's no denying a dedicated force of people can add a really polished layer that OS projects may take much longer to come up with, if ever.</p><p>Did you seriously expect most Android apps to be open source?  Come on!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead , we seem to be witnessing the birth of a new hybrid stack -- open source underneath , and proprietary on top.Gee , it 's not like anyone 's done [ openbsd.org ] that [ apple.com ] before...There 's nothing at all wrong with proprietary layers somewhere in the next - in theory all open source is preferable for a lot of reasons , but there 's no denying a dedicated force of people can add a really polished layer that OS projects may take much longer to come up with , if ever.Did you seriously expect most Android apps to be open source ?
Come on !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instead, we seem to be witnessing the birth of a new hybrid stack -- open source underneath, and proprietary on top.Gee, it's not like anyone's done  [openbsd.org]  that [apple.com] before...There's nothing at all wrong with proprietary layers somewhere in the next - in theory all open source is preferable for a lot of reasons, but there's no denying a dedicated force of people can add a really polished layer that OS projects may take much longer to come up with, if ever.Did you seriously expect most Android apps to be open source?
Come on!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30515996</id>
	<title>Re:Well, let's see</title>
	<author>Enderandrew</author>
	<datestamp>1261386000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only problem is that he feels he is the only one who should be able to define freedom, and his definition is a series of restrictions.</p><p>True freedom is public domain. Do whatever you want with zero restrictions. But that isn't what he advocates.</p><p>When Stallman writes letters to Canonical saying their distribution should drop Firefox, because Firefox allows the installation of proprietary extensions, and saying users should not have the option to install any non-oss, he goes entirely too far.</p><p>He is trying to directly rob me of the freedom to choose what software I want to install. He doesn't get to take that choice from me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only problem is that he feels he is the only one who should be able to define freedom , and his definition is a series of restrictions.True freedom is public domain .
Do whatever you want with zero restrictions .
But that is n't what he advocates.When Stallman writes letters to Canonical saying their distribution should drop Firefox , because Firefox allows the installation of proprietary extensions , and saying users should not have the option to install any non-oss , he goes entirely too far.He is trying to directly rob me of the freedom to choose what software I want to install .
He does n't get to take that choice from me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only problem is that he feels he is the only one who should be able to define freedom, and his definition is a series of restrictions.True freedom is public domain.
Do whatever you want with zero restrictions.
But that isn't what he advocates.When Stallman writes letters to Canonical saying their distribution should drop Firefox, because Firefox allows the installation of proprietary extensions, and saying users should not have the option to install any non-oss, he goes entirely too far.He is trying to directly rob me of the freedom to choose what software I want to install.
He doesn't get to take that choice from me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30514446</id>
	<title>Re:Android license</title>
	<author>markkezner</author>
	<datestamp>1261422060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most of Android in general (ie new code) is Apache 2.0. Parts of it use other licenses; Linux is GPL, Webkit is LGPL, SQLite is Public Domain, etc. Patches they submit to those upstream projects maintain the original license of that project.</p><p><a href="http://source.android.com/license" title="android.com">Citation</a> [android.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of Android in general ( ie new code ) is Apache 2.0 .
Parts of it use other licenses ; Linux is GPL , Webkit is LGPL , SQLite is Public Domain , etc .
Patches they submit to those upstream projects maintain the original license of that project.Citation [ android.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of Android in general (ie new code) is Apache 2.0.
Parts of it use other licenses; Linux is GPL, Webkit is LGPL, SQLite is Public Domain, etc.
Patches they submit to those upstream projects maintain the original license of that project.Citation [android.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513358</id>
	<title>Not such a problem?</title>
	<author>Junior J. Junior III</author>
	<datestamp>1261417320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Broad problems that have software solutions will tend to have a lot of people who need the solution, and will tend to be cheap and/or free.  Either the market base will be so large that developers can recoup costs by charging only a small amount per license, or else the industry or community will fund them in some other way.  Such as companies that hire developers to work on open source projects for some application which the company uses as a tool rather than sells as a product.The OSS project gets professional developers working on it, and their contributions are shared with the OSS community, and then everyone benefits.</p><p>Narrow problems that have software solutions will tend to have fewer people who need (or merely want) the solution, and will tend to cost more.</p><p>My take on this is this:</p><p>I love open source, and I love free software.  But to me, so long as there's a solution to the problem, that's what matters most of all.  It's better from my perspective if that solution is free/Free.  It's acceptable, if no free solution exists, to pay for something, in the sense that economically supporting a good solution is a good thing.  I'd rather provide economic support to open source projects than to closed source projects, but really, I want solutions to my problems, and I'll support economically any solution if I need to, as long as I feel it's a good, worthwhile solution.</p><p>Due to the nature of open source projects, it's almost always optional to provide that support, and by contrast it's usually not optional to pay for closed-source software solutions ("pirating" notwithstanding). So for the most part, my economic contributions to software projects tend to skew toward closed source, even thought the amount of closed source software I use is pretty low.  Which, I think, is unfortunate, given that I would prefer to support open projects.  I don't contribute monetarily to most OSS projects, because I'm not required to.  I pretty much only pay for software if I absolutely have to (I <em>need</em> the solution, and the only viable solutions require you to pay for them.)</p><p>My point in all this is that, it's OK for small projects to charge for the solution if that's the best way for them to fund themselves.  I wouldn't expect independent game developer to create FOSS games just to share them with the Android community for nothing.  I don't need to play a game on my cell phone, but if I decide I want to, and there's a particular game that I really like the look of, I'll gladly pay a reasonable amount to support the project.  For software that provides broad solutions to common problems, I'd expect that to be built in to the phone already, or implemented by a community of OSS developers who probably get funding in some way other than direct sales of software licenses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Broad problems that have software solutions will tend to have a lot of people who need the solution , and will tend to be cheap and/or free .
Either the market base will be so large that developers can recoup costs by charging only a small amount per license , or else the industry or community will fund them in some other way .
Such as companies that hire developers to work on open source projects for some application which the company uses as a tool rather than sells as a product.The OSS project gets professional developers working on it , and their contributions are shared with the OSS community , and then everyone benefits.Narrow problems that have software solutions will tend to have fewer people who need ( or merely want ) the solution , and will tend to cost more.My take on this is this : I love open source , and I love free software .
But to me , so long as there 's a solution to the problem , that 's what matters most of all .
It 's better from my perspective if that solution is free/Free .
It 's acceptable , if no free solution exists , to pay for something , in the sense that economically supporting a good solution is a good thing .
I 'd rather provide economic support to open source projects than to closed source projects , but really , I want solutions to my problems , and I 'll support economically any solution if I need to , as long as I feel it 's a good , worthwhile solution.Due to the nature of open source projects , it 's almost always optional to provide that support , and by contrast it 's usually not optional to pay for closed-source software solutions ( " pirating " notwithstanding ) .
So for the most part , my economic contributions to software projects tend to skew toward closed source , even thought the amount of closed source software I use is pretty low .
Which , I think , is unfortunate , given that I would prefer to support open projects .
I do n't contribute monetarily to most OSS projects , because I 'm not required to .
I pretty much only pay for software if I absolutely have to ( I need the solution , and the only viable solutions require you to pay for them .
) My point in all this is that , it 's OK for small projects to charge for the solution if that 's the best way for them to fund themselves .
I would n't expect independent game developer to create FOSS games just to share them with the Android community for nothing .
I do n't need to play a game on my cell phone , but if I decide I want to , and there 's a particular game that I really like the look of , I 'll gladly pay a reasonable amount to support the project .
For software that provides broad solutions to common problems , I 'd expect that to be built in to the phone already , or implemented by a community of OSS developers who probably get funding in some way other than direct sales of software licenses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Broad problems that have software solutions will tend to have a lot of people who need the solution, and will tend to be cheap and/or free.
Either the market base will be so large that developers can recoup costs by charging only a small amount per license, or else the industry or community will fund them in some other way.
Such as companies that hire developers to work on open source projects for some application which the company uses as a tool rather than sells as a product.The OSS project gets professional developers working on it, and their contributions are shared with the OSS community, and then everyone benefits.Narrow problems that have software solutions will tend to have fewer people who need (or merely want) the solution, and will tend to cost more.My take on this is this:I love open source, and I love free software.
But to me, so long as there's a solution to the problem, that's what matters most of all.
It's better from my perspective if that solution is free/Free.
It's acceptable, if no free solution exists, to pay for something, in the sense that economically supporting a good solution is a good thing.
I'd rather provide economic support to open source projects than to closed source projects, but really, I want solutions to my problems, and I'll support economically any solution if I need to, as long as I feel it's a good, worthwhile solution.Due to the nature of open source projects, it's almost always optional to provide that support, and by contrast it's usually not optional to pay for closed-source software solutions ("pirating" notwithstanding).
So for the most part, my economic contributions to software projects tend to skew toward closed source, even thought the amount of closed source software I use is pretty low.
Which, I think, is unfortunate, given that I would prefer to support open projects.
I don't contribute monetarily to most OSS projects, because I'm not required to.
I pretty much only pay for software if I absolutely have to (I need the solution, and the only viable solutions require you to pay for them.
)My point in all this is that, it's OK for small projects to charge for the solution if that's the best way for them to fund themselves.
I wouldn't expect independent game developer to create FOSS games just to share them with the Android community for nothing.
I don't need to play a game on my cell phone, but if I decide I want to, and there's a particular game that I really like the look of, I'll gladly pay a reasonable amount to support the project.
For software that provides broad solutions to common problems, I'd expect that to be built in to the phone already, or implemented by a community of OSS developers who probably get funding in some way other than direct sales of software licenses.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513924</id>
	<title>Re:Well, let's see</title>
	<author>SecurityGuy</author>
	<datestamp>1261419720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>True, that's the theory.  The fact seems to be that open source software is simple price competition.  Most users don't care that they *can* modify the code, they just care that they can have it without paying anything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>True , that 's the theory .
The fact seems to be that open source software is simple price competition .
Most users do n't care that they * can * modify the code , they just care that they can have it without paying anything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True, that's the theory.
The fact seems to be that open source software is simple price competition.
Most users don't care that they *can* modify the code, they just care that they can have it without paying anything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30569496</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward Post</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261999800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One thing people forget is that there is a thing called The Copyright Law. If Linus Torvalds copyrights the Linux kernel, on the condition that anyone who uses the kernel to run software must freely provide the software source code for download on the Internet; THEN PEOPLE ARE NOT LEGALLY ALLOWED TO USE THE LINUX KERNEL IN PROPRIETARY APS and operating systems. And this is exactly the case. Android is stealing a massive amount of development work, selling it, and keeping all the money.</p><p>Apache web server is open source, yet it's funded by commercial enterprise. People who need the software support the program . But the source is freely avaialble. I'll sue google myself if I have to. It is a brazen copyright violator. It is legally compelled to make the source code available to the public, OR IT MUST STOP USING THE LINUX KERNEL. If we're going to take copyright law and throw it in the trash, money grubbing scum is going to have their paws all over everything, and Linux development will all be commercial. That will signal the end of open source. Linux will be another Windows.</p><p>So if that's what people want, then don't pay any attention to the law. Let everyone do whatever they feel like doing, without regard for the law. The mighty will slay the weak out of arrogance. Google needs to be sued, NOW.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One thing people forget is that there is a thing called The Copyright Law .
If Linus Torvalds copyrights the Linux kernel , on the condition that anyone who uses the kernel to run software must freely provide the software source code for download on the Internet ; THEN PEOPLE ARE NOT LEGALLY ALLOWED TO USE THE LINUX KERNEL IN PROPRIETARY APS and operating systems .
And this is exactly the case .
Android is stealing a massive amount of development work , selling it , and keeping all the money.Apache web server is open source , yet it 's funded by commercial enterprise .
People who need the software support the program .
But the source is freely avaialble .
I 'll sue google myself if I have to .
It is a brazen copyright violator .
It is legally compelled to make the source code available to the public , OR IT MUST STOP USING THE LINUX KERNEL .
If we 're going to take copyright law and throw it in the trash , money grubbing scum is going to have their paws all over everything , and Linux development will all be commercial .
That will signal the end of open source .
Linux will be another Windows.So if that 's what people want , then do n't pay any attention to the law .
Let everyone do whatever they feel like doing , without regard for the law .
The mighty will slay the weak out of arrogance .
Google needs to be sued , NOW .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One thing people forget is that there is a thing called The Copyright Law.
If Linus Torvalds copyrights the Linux kernel, on the condition that anyone who uses the kernel to run software must freely provide the software source code for download on the Internet; THEN PEOPLE ARE NOT LEGALLY ALLOWED TO USE THE LINUX KERNEL IN PROPRIETARY APS and operating systems.
And this is exactly the case.
Android is stealing a massive amount of development work, selling it, and keeping all the money.Apache web server is open source, yet it's funded by commercial enterprise.
People who need the software support the program .
But the source is freely avaialble.
I'll sue google myself if I have to.
It is a brazen copyright violator.
It is legally compelled to make the source code available to the public, OR IT MUST STOP USING THE LINUX KERNEL.
If we're going to take copyright law and throw it in the trash, money grubbing scum is going to have their paws all over everything, and Linux development will all be commercial.
That will signal the end of open source.
Linux will be another Windows.So if that's what people want, then don't pay any attention to the law.
Let everyone do whatever they feel like doing, without regard for the law.
The mighty will slay the weak out of arrogance.
Google needs to be sued, NOW.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512502</id>
	<title>Re:Okay, I'll be the one to say it...</title>
	<author>ProppaT</author>
	<datestamp>1261413420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The big difference is Linux is free.  Android is not.  It's open source and free to use, but you have to be kidding yourself if you don't think that Google makes money off of Android.  It's tied into all of their services.  It's pushing them more advertisement revenue.  Linux is most definitely not developed around a business model to make money.</p><p>The reason we have paid applications for Android is because it's a successful platform and people don't mind spending a dollar or two at a time for a new toy.  No one is stopping you from making a paid Linux app; however, the competition is much more fierce with Linux.  People create free software for Linux because it replaces software that would otherwise cost a substantial amount of money ($30-hundreds of dollars).  People won't impulse buy productivity software.  Feel free to write your own Linux app and charge for it...many do, but it's hard to have success on a platform based around free, open source software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The big difference is Linux is free .
Android is not .
It 's open source and free to use , but you have to be kidding yourself if you do n't think that Google makes money off of Android .
It 's tied into all of their services .
It 's pushing them more advertisement revenue .
Linux is most definitely not developed around a business model to make money.The reason we have paid applications for Android is because it 's a successful platform and people do n't mind spending a dollar or two at a time for a new toy .
No one is stopping you from making a paid Linux app ; however , the competition is much more fierce with Linux .
People create free software for Linux because it replaces software that would otherwise cost a substantial amount of money ( $ 30-hundreds of dollars ) .
People wo n't impulse buy productivity software .
Feel free to write your own Linux app and charge for it...many do , but it 's hard to have success on a platform based around free , open source software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The big difference is Linux is free.
Android is not.
It's open source and free to use, but you have to be kidding yourself if you don't think that Google makes money off of Android.
It's tied into all of their services.
It's pushing them more advertisement revenue.
Linux is most definitely not developed around a business model to make money.The reason we have paid applications for Android is because it's a successful platform and people don't mind spending a dollar or two at a time for a new toy.
No one is stopping you from making a paid Linux app; however, the competition is much more fierce with Linux.
People create free software for Linux because it replaces software that would otherwise cost a substantial amount of money ($30-hundreds of dollars).
People won't impulse buy productivity software.
Feel free to write your own Linux app and charge for it...many do, but it's hard to have success on a platform based around free, open source software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511940</id>
	<title>Android license</title>
	<author>viralMeme</author>
	<datestamp>1261410180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What does the Android license say as compared to other licenses, the GPL, Apache, BSD, Apple and Microsoft for instance ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What does the Android license say as compared to other licenses , the GPL , Apache , BSD , Apple and Microsoft for instance ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What does the Android license say as compared to other licenses, the GPL, Apache, BSD, Apple and Microsoft for instance ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30527456</id>
	<title>The problem is the developers</title>
	<author>jantman</author>
	<datestamp>1261513980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here's my take on this issue, having developed one Android app and used many:
<br>
The real problem is developer education. There are LOTS of free (as in beer), or no cost, applications on the Android Market. Few of them, that I've found, are under a Free/Open Source license, if they even have a license at all. I'd guess that quite a few of those applications aren't intentionally kept closed, but are just written by developers who aren't used to the Open Source world, and aren't educated on why they should open their source (and I'm just thinking about the practical, have-someone-else-write-the-patch-for-you side of things). Google should be making more of an effort to educate developers, or at least point them in the right direction, about license choice.
<br> <br>
My thoughts on what Google needs:<br>
1) Add search functionality to the Market app to allow users to search both by price and by license.<br>
2) ***IMPORTANT*** - there's currently a $25 listing fee on the Market. Drop it to $10 or $15 for apps with an open source license.<br>
#2, while many will argue is not a good long-term business strategy, would at least boost app development by lowering the barrier for entry.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's my take on this issue , having developed one Android app and used many : The real problem is developer education .
There are LOTS of free ( as in beer ) , or no cost , applications on the Android Market .
Few of them , that I 've found , are under a Free/Open Source license , if they even have a license at all .
I 'd guess that quite a few of those applications are n't intentionally kept closed , but are just written by developers who are n't used to the Open Source world , and are n't educated on why they should open their source ( and I 'm just thinking about the practical , have-someone-else-write-the-patch-for-you side of things ) .
Google should be making more of an effort to educate developers , or at least point them in the right direction , about license choice .
My thoughts on what Google needs : 1 ) Add search functionality to the Market app to allow users to search both by price and by license .
2 ) * * * IMPORTANT * * * - there 's currently a $ 25 listing fee on the Market .
Drop it to $ 10 or $ 15 for apps with an open source license .
# 2 , while many will argue is not a good long-term business strategy , would at least boost app development by lowering the barrier for entry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's my take on this issue, having developed one Android app and used many:

The real problem is developer education.
There are LOTS of free (as in beer), or no cost, applications on the Android Market.
Few of them, that I've found, are under a Free/Open Source license, if they even have a license at all.
I'd guess that quite a few of those applications aren't intentionally kept closed, but are just written by developers who aren't used to the Open Source world, and aren't educated on why they should open their source (and I'm just thinking about the practical, have-someone-else-write-the-patch-for-you side of things).
Google should be making more of an effort to educate developers, or at least point them in the right direction, about license choice.
My thoughts on what Google needs:
1) Add search functionality to the Market app to allow users to search both by price and by license.
2) ***IMPORTANT*** - there's currently a $25 listing fee on the Market.
Drop it to $10 or $15 for apps with an open source license.
#2, while many will argue is not a good long-term business strategy, would at least boost app development by lowering the barrier for entry.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512318</id>
	<title>Re:Maemo</title>
	<author>c0d3g33k</author>
	<datestamp>1261412460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I did (vote with my wallet).  Maemo lost.  Google managed to get a provider that actually has coverage where I live to sell an android device.  Maemo?  Not so much.  When ideology collides with the real world, sometimes the real world wins.  I hope this changes in the future, because I didn't have any preexisting bias for android, but I can use my android phone NOW, rather than wait for the nebulous future when the planets line up just right to make devices available that run software which fits my ideology perfectly.  OTOH, I can't say I have much to complain about with android so far.  I've been able to run only Free (as in speech) apps to get the functionality I desire, and I can write my own using the SDK that's available.  Seems like a fine situation to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did ( vote with my wallet ) .
Maemo lost .
Google managed to get a provider that actually has coverage where I live to sell an android device .
Maemo ? Not so much .
When ideology collides with the real world , sometimes the real world wins .
I hope this changes in the future , because I did n't have any preexisting bias for android , but I can use my android phone NOW , rather than wait for the nebulous future when the planets line up just right to make devices available that run software which fits my ideology perfectly .
OTOH , I ca n't say I have much to complain about with android so far .
I 've been able to run only Free ( as in speech ) apps to get the functionality I desire , and I can write my own using the SDK that 's available .
Seems like a fine situation to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I did (vote with my wallet).
Maemo lost.
Google managed to get a provider that actually has coverage where I live to sell an android device.
Maemo?  Not so much.
When ideology collides with the real world, sometimes the real world wins.
I hope this changes in the future, because I didn't have any preexisting bias for android, but I can use my android phone NOW, rather than wait for the nebulous future when the planets line up just right to make devices available that run software which fits my ideology perfectly.
OTOH, I can't say I have much to complain about with android so far.
I've been able to run only Free (as in speech) apps to get the functionality I desire, and I can write my own using the SDK that's available.
Seems like a fine situation to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511978</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30515878</id>
	<title>Re:Uh...build your own free app?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261428600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I don't see the problem.</p></div></blockquote><p>You're not Glyn Moody.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't see the problem.You 're not Glyn Moody .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't see the problem.You're not Glyn Moody.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512818</id>
	<title>OSS and For Purchase Apps --taste great together</title>
	<author>Jim Ethanol</author>
	<datestamp>1261414980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The reasons to write an OSS app for Andriod or iPhone are the same as any other open source software.
<br> <br>
I developed an Open Source game for the iPhone called <a href="http://darknova.net/" title="darknova.net">Dark Nova</a> [darknova.net]. We're looking at porting it to Andriod right now. The game is based off Space Trader for the Palm which is itself GPL.
<br> <br>
Dark Nova is open source. We build the retail app from the Google Code repo. We charge $1 for the game in the App Store. So far this has worked out pretty well. We've had an OSS developer contribute some helpful code. Starting with a port instead of from scratch lowered the initial risk/investment for a 1st time app developer.<br> <br>

Our game is for sale and we're making money on it. The code is under the Apache License. The graphics and music are copyrighted and the name is trademarked. I think it's a great model and holds true to the path laid out by Red Hat and others. If someone wants to take the trouble the "roll-their-own" they can have the game for free. Most folks just pay the dollar. If someone wants to use the code. It's up there. If someone wants to help, they can.<br> <br>

Of course the motivation of this post is a shameless plug. This is my first OSS project and I could use any help/advice I can get with development or management of the project. The Dark Nova Google Code site is here</htmltext>
<tokenext>The reasons to write an OSS app for Andriod or iPhone are the same as any other open source software .
I developed an Open Source game for the iPhone called Dark Nova [ darknova.net ] .
We 're looking at porting it to Andriod right now .
The game is based off Space Trader for the Palm which is itself GPL .
Dark Nova is open source .
We build the retail app from the Google Code repo .
We charge $ 1 for the game in the App Store .
So far this has worked out pretty well .
We 've had an OSS developer contribute some helpful code .
Starting with a port instead of from scratch lowered the initial risk/investment for a 1st time app developer .
Our game is for sale and we 're making money on it .
The code is under the Apache License .
The graphics and music are copyrighted and the name is trademarked .
I think it 's a great model and holds true to the path laid out by Red Hat and others .
If someone wants to take the trouble the " roll-their-own " they can have the game for free .
Most folks just pay the dollar .
If someone wants to use the code .
It 's up there .
If someone wants to help , they can .
Of course the motivation of this post is a shameless plug .
This is my first OSS project and I could use any help/advice I can get with development or management of the project .
The Dark Nova Google Code site is here</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reasons to write an OSS app for Andriod or iPhone are the same as any other open source software.
I developed an Open Source game for the iPhone called Dark Nova [darknova.net].
We're looking at porting it to Andriod right now.
The game is based off Space Trader for the Palm which is itself GPL.
Dark Nova is open source.
We build the retail app from the Google Code repo.
We charge $1 for the game in the App Store.
So far this has worked out pretty well.
We've had an OSS developer contribute some helpful code.
Starting with a port instead of from scratch lowered the initial risk/investment for a 1st time app developer.
Our game is for sale and we're making money on it.
The code is under the Apache License.
The graphics and music are copyrighted and the name is trademarked.
I think it's a great model and holds true to the path laid out by Red Hat and others.
If someone wants to take the trouble the "roll-their-own" they can have the game for free.
Most folks just pay the dollar.
If someone wants to use the code.
It's up there.
If someone wants to help, they can.
Of course the motivation of this post is a shameless plug.
This is my first OSS project and I could use any help/advice I can get with development or management of the project.
The Dark Nova Google Code site is here</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512134</id>
	<title>No enlightened self-interest in fart apps</title>
	<author>itsdapead</author>
	<datestamp>1261411320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And nothing of value was lost?

</p><p>If I'm a developer trying to write a major app - say a wordprocessor or an operating system - I have a huge job ahead of me and hence, a good incentive to recruit the help of the FOSS community by opening my code. Likewise, the community has a stronmg incentive to help.

</p><p>A lot of "Apps", however, tend to be fairly simple, verging on the trivial, single-purpose applications, and a good one might owe more to being a cool idea rather than a clever and intricate bit of coding.  There's less incentive to share (and less incentive for the community to help).

</p><p>Of course, the community still gains from the increasing popularity of the underlying, open source OS and the "big tools" (like WebKit).

</p><p>I suspect that open source will continue to be better at systems &amp; infrastructure stuff (where the target audience is programmers or other nerds) than user-facing apps. Nerds aren't good at writing software for non-nerds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And nothing of value was lost ?
If I 'm a developer trying to write a major app - say a wordprocessor or an operating system - I have a huge job ahead of me and hence , a good incentive to recruit the help of the FOSS community by opening my code .
Likewise , the community has a stronmg incentive to help .
A lot of " Apps " , however , tend to be fairly simple , verging on the trivial , single-purpose applications , and a good one might owe more to being a cool idea rather than a clever and intricate bit of coding .
There 's less incentive to share ( and less incentive for the community to help ) .
Of course , the community still gains from the increasing popularity of the underlying , open source OS and the " big tools " ( like WebKit ) .
I suspect that open source will continue to be better at systems &amp; infrastructure stuff ( where the target audience is programmers or other nerds ) than user-facing apps .
Nerds are n't good at writing software for non-nerds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And nothing of value was lost?
If I'm a developer trying to write a major app - say a wordprocessor or an operating system - I have a huge job ahead of me and hence, a good incentive to recruit the help of the FOSS community by opening my code.
Likewise, the community has a stronmg incentive to help.
A lot of "Apps", however, tend to be fairly simple, verging on the trivial, single-purpose applications, and a good one might owe more to being a cool idea rather than a clever and intricate bit of coding.
There's less incentive to share (and less incentive for the community to help).
Of course, the community still gains from the increasing popularity of the underlying, open source OS and the "big tools" (like WebKit).
I suspect that open source will continue to be better at systems &amp; infrastructure stuff (where the target audience is programmers or other nerds) than user-facing apps.
Nerds aren't good at writing software for non-nerds.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512532</id>
	<title>Re:Well, let's see</title>
	<author>Tranzistors</author>
	<datestamp>1261413540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The point of open source and free software is that it's supposed to be <i>better</i> than proprietary.  It's supposed to win on merit [..]</p></div><p>Open source vs. free software again. Proprietary software was never a threat to the <em>open source</em>. You can make an open source app and run it in completely closed environment and it would be cool. TFA talks about <em>free software</em> where they go for liberation of user. And if the only thing, that is free is the underlining platform and you need to use closed apps to do anything useful, then the freedom is, well, lost.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The point of open source and free software is that it 's supposed to be better than proprietary .
It 's supposed to win on merit [ .. ] Open source vs. free software again .
Proprietary software was never a threat to the open source .
You can make an open source app and run it in completely closed environment and it would be cool .
TFA talks about free software where they go for liberation of user .
And if the only thing , that is free is the underlining platform and you need to use closed apps to do anything useful , then the freedom is , well , lost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The point of open source and free software is that it's supposed to be better than proprietary.
It's supposed to win on merit [..]Open source vs. free software again.
Proprietary software was never a threat to the open source.
You can make an open source app and run it in completely closed environment and it would be cool.
TFA talks about free software where they go for liberation of user.
And if the only thing, that is free is the underlining platform and you need to use closed apps to do anything useful, then the freedom is, well, lost.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512976</id>
	<title>Re:Maemo</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1261415640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you're going to buy your device from the provider, then enjoy the fact that they will treat it as if they own it and enjoy paying around 15-30\% APR on the loan that they give you to pay for it (included with your contract).</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're going to buy your device from the provider , then enjoy the fact that they will treat it as if they own it and enjoy paying around 15-30 \ % APR on the loan that they give you to pay for it ( included with your contract ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're going to buy your device from the provider, then enjoy the fact that they will treat it as if they own it and enjoy paying around 15-30\% APR on the loan that they give you to pay for it (included with your contract).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512318</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30515200</id>
	<title>Re:Actually, summary is wrong.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261425300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So new that you don't know we have two kinds of free here?  The summary goes on to say "open source underneath, and proprietary on top."  This implies that the definition of free the author is going for is the "free as in speech" one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So new that you do n't know we have two kinds of free here ?
The summary goes on to say " open source underneath , and proprietary on top .
" This implies that the definition of free the author is going for is the " free as in speech " one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So new that you don't know we have two kinds of free here?
The summary goes on to say "open source underneath, and proprietary on top.
"  This implies that the definition of free the author is going for is the "free as in speech" one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512374</id>
	<title>Evil</title>
	<author>Enderandrew</author>
	<datestamp>1261412880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft is evil because they want to enforce vendor lock in! How dare they try to push an all Microsoft ecosystem! Microsoft is evil because they aren't very interoperable!</p><p>What? You want to run proprietary apps on FOSS? We can't have that. We want to enforce a lock in strategy where you have to have this entire ecosystem of 100\% free apps, or nothing else! And if someone dares suggest interoperability with Microsoft products (such as when OpenOffice contraversally added support for MS Office 2007 documents) I'll blast them for it! How dare they!</p><p>(If you think I'm exaggerating, read the Boycott Novell blog, which does in fact blast Novell for working on interoperability with Microsoft,)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft is evil because they want to enforce vendor lock in !
How dare they try to push an all Microsoft ecosystem !
Microsoft is evil because they are n't very interoperable ! What ?
You want to run proprietary apps on FOSS ?
We ca n't have that .
We want to enforce a lock in strategy where you have to have this entire ecosystem of 100 \ % free apps , or nothing else !
And if someone dares suggest interoperability with Microsoft products ( such as when OpenOffice contraversally added support for MS Office 2007 documents ) I 'll blast them for it !
How dare they !
( If you think I 'm exaggerating , read the Boycott Novell blog , which does in fact blast Novell for working on interoperability with Microsoft , )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft is evil because they want to enforce vendor lock in!
How dare they try to push an all Microsoft ecosystem!
Microsoft is evil because they aren't very interoperable!What?
You want to run proprietary apps on FOSS?
We can't have that.
We want to enforce a lock in strategy where you have to have this entire ecosystem of 100\% free apps, or nothing else!
And if someone dares suggest interoperability with Microsoft products (such as when OpenOffice contraversally added support for MS Office 2007 documents) I'll blast them for it!
How dare they!
(If you think I'm exaggerating, read the Boycott Novell blog, which does in fact blast Novell for working on interoperability with Microsoft,)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512224</id>
	<title>Actually, summary is wrong.</title>
	<author>mspohr</author>
	<datestamp>1261411920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>But there's a problem: few of these Android apps are free software.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Wrong.</p><p>

I went and clicked the links (I know, I am new here) and if you look at the actual data in  AndroidLib (http://www.androlib.com/appstatsfreepaid.aspx), you will see that 60\% of the apps are free apps.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But there 's a problem : few of these Android apps are free software .
Wrong . I went and clicked the links ( I know , I am new here ) and if you look at the actual data in AndroidLib ( http : //www.androlib.com/appstatsfreepaid.aspx ) , you will see that 60 \ % of the apps are free apps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But there's a problem: few of these Android apps are free software.
Wrong.

I went and clicked the links (I know, I am new here) and if you look at the actual data in  AndroidLib (http://www.androlib.com/appstatsfreepaid.aspx), you will see that 60\% of the apps are free apps.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513488</id>
	<title>Selling software is not a crime</title>
	<author>DrDitto</author>
	<datestamp>1261417860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What the hell is wrong with selling software applications and making a living doing it?  Having the bottom layers of the system being free and open is far better than the other way around.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What the hell is wrong with selling software applications and making a living doing it ?
Having the bottom layers of the system being free and open is far better than the other way around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the hell is wrong with selling software applications and making a living doing it?
Having the bottom layers of the system being free and open is far better than the other way around.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512722</id>
	<title>Why is this surprising?</title>
	<author>L3370</author>
	<datestamp>1261414620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Really? Why? <br>
There are a massive number of paid apps developed for these phones because developers have noticed that these users have no qualms about paying $500 for a cell phone. Chances are these people are willing to pay cash for an app along with it. It's money chasing and there's nothing wrong with that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
Why ? There are a massive number of paid apps developed for these phones because developers have noticed that these users have no qualms about paying $ 500 for a cell phone .
Chances are these people are willing to pay cash for an app along with it .
It 's money chasing and there 's nothing wrong with that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
Why? 
There are a massive number of paid apps developed for these phones because developers have noticed that these users have no qualms about paying $500 for a cell phone.
Chances are these people are willing to pay cash for an app along with it.
It's money chasing and there's nothing wrong with that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512066</id>
	<title>Re:Okay, I'll be the one to say it...</title>
	<author>killmenow</author>
	<datestamp>1261410840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly. There's nothing to see here. There is tremendous drive right now for developers with an interest in making money to develop apps for Android. The drive is there because the "promise" of riches is there. But, just like the desktop computing environment before, the commercial developers will be followed by OSS developers who just have an itch to scratch that no existing app handles, or they realize people are charging money for an app that is essentially twenty lines of code and they say, "really? they charge money for that? How ridiculous!" and write a better version under a FLOSS license. I have added a crapload of apps to my droid, all free as in beer and some free as in speech. It's cool to realize some of the games I play on my phone I could contribute patches to if I so desired.</p><p>One of the reasons I chose this phone is because I use the Android SDK and have written a few (VERY simple) apps and know if there's something I want bad enough, I can develop it myself and I don't have to root (or "jailbreak") my phone (voiding warranties) or get Google or Apple's approval to install it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
There 's nothing to see here .
There is tremendous drive right now for developers with an interest in making money to develop apps for Android .
The drive is there because the " promise " of riches is there .
But , just like the desktop computing environment before , the commercial developers will be followed by OSS developers who just have an itch to scratch that no existing app handles , or they realize people are charging money for an app that is essentially twenty lines of code and they say , " really ?
they charge money for that ?
How ridiculous !
" and write a better version under a FLOSS license .
I have added a crapload of apps to my droid , all free as in beer and some free as in speech .
It 's cool to realize some of the games I play on my phone I could contribute patches to if I so desired.One of the reasons I chose this phone is because I use the Android SDK and have written a few ( VERY simple ) apps and know if there 's something I want bad enough , I can develop it myself and I do n't have to root ( or " jailbreak " ) my phone ( voiding warranties ) or get Google or Apple 's approval to install it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
There's nothing to see here.
There is tremendous drive right now for developers with an interest in making money to develop apps for Android.
The drive is there because the "promise" of riches is there.
But, just like the desktop computing environment before, the commercial developers will be followed by OSS developers who just have an itch to scratch that no existing app handles, or they realize people are charging money for an app that is essentially twenty lines of code and they say, "really?
they charge money for that?
How ridiculous!
" and write a better version under a FLOSS license.
I have added a crapload of apps to my droid, all free as in beer and some free as in speech.
It's cool to realize some of the games I play on my phone I could contribute patches to if I so desired.One of the reasons I chose this phone is because I use the Android SDK and have written a few (VERY simple) apps and know if there's something I want bad enough, I can develop it myself and I don't have to root (or "jailbreak") my phone (voiding warranties) or get Google or Apple's approval to install it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513090</id>
	<title>Re:Well, let's see</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261416120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The point of open source and free software is that it's supposed to be <i>better</i> than proprietary.  It's supposed to win on merit, not restrictive licensing or "the community" trying to force things.</p></div><p>Open Source, maybe, but the whole point of the Free Software movement <i>is</i> the licencing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The point of open source and free software is that it 's supposed to be better than proprietary .
It 's supposed to win on merit , not restrictive licensing or " the community " trying to force things.Open Source , maybe , but the whole point of the Free Software movement is the licencing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The point of open source and free software is that it's supposed to be better than proprietary.
It's supposed to win on merit, not restrictive licensing or "the community" trying to force things.Open Source, maybe, but the whole point of the Free Software movement is the licencing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513416</id>
	<title>Is anybody actually making money from these apps?</title>
	<author>HockeyPuck</author>
	<datestamp>1261417560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I seem to recall quite a few articles or discussions for app stores for iphone and android that basically said that piracy was brutal for applications.</p><p>Android:<a href="http://mobile.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/11/20/1558259/" title="slashdot.org">http://mobile.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/11/20/1558259/</a> [slashdot.org]<br>iPhone: <a href="http://games.slashdot.org/story/09/11/21/0011222/" title="slashdot.org">http://games.slashdot.org/story/09/11/21/0011222/</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>These apps just seem no different than music was in the napster era.  People often ask me why they should pay for these apps when they can just pirate them for free.</p><p>Also does anybody audit android apps to make sure there are no backdoors or parts of the app which email all your data to some website?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I seem to recall quite a few articles or discussions for app stores for iphone and android that basically said that piracy was brutal for applications.Android : http : //mobile.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 09/11/20/1558259/ [ slashdot.org ] iPhone : http : //games.slashdot.org/story/09/11/21/0011222/ [ slashdot.org ] These apps just seem no different than music was in the napster era .
People often ask me why they should pay for these apps when they can just pirate them for free.Also does anybody audit android apps to make sure there are no backdoors or parts of the app which email all your data to some website ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I seem to recall quite a few articles or discussions for app stores for iphone and android that basically said that piracy was brutal for applications.Android:http://mobile.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/11/20/1558259/ [slashdot.org]iPhone: http://games.slashdot.org/story/09/11/21/0011222/ [slashdot.org]These apps just seem no different than music was in the napster era.
People often ask me why they should pay for these apps when they can just pirate them for free.Also does anybody audit android apps to make sure there are no backdoors or parts of the app which email all your data to some website?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30515040</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261424580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm wondering how many people here have android phones. I've got a Droid, and I've paid for exactly 1 app, and I've got more apps on the device than I could possibly need. I saw a market study that shows that iPhone apps are far more likely to be paid apps than on any other platform, and that iPhone users are far more likely to *pay* for apps than on any other platform. This is seen as a *threat* to Android development, as you can't get people to pay for android apps in as significant numbers as on the iPhone.</p><p>Additionally, the apps on the Android are indisputably of a lower quality in fit, finish and polish than iPhone apps. Some of that may be the SDK - but I think it is more likely a heritage of the *nix foundations under Android. Ubuntu is a fairly nice looking desktop OS all things considered, but when you start getting into the apps themselves, those grass-roots, DIY ethics start showing through compared to commercial alternatives on OS X and Win32/64. The same thing seems true to me with Android apps. They're just not as highly polished. They look... linuxish.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm wondering how many people here have android phones .
I 've got a Droid , and I 've paid for exactly 1 app , and I 've got more apps on the device than I could possibly need .
I saw a market study that shows that iPhone apps are far more likely to be paid apps than on any other platform , and that iPhone users are far more likely to * pay * for apps than on any other platform .
This is seen as a * threat * to Android development , as you ca n't get people to pay for android apps in as significant numbers as on the iPhone.Additionally , the apps on the Android are indisputably of a lower quality in fit , finish and polish than iPhone apps .
Some of that may be the SDK - but I think it is more likely a heritage of the * nix foundations under Android .
Ubuntu is a fairly nice looking desktop OS all things considered , but when you start getting into the apps themselves , those grass-roots , DIY ethics start showing through compared to commercial alternatives on OS X and Win32/64 .
The same thing seems true to me with Android apps .
They 're just not as highly polished .
They look... linuxish .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm wondering how many people here have android phones.
I've got a Droid, and I've paid for exactly 1 app, and I've got more apps on the device than I could possibly need.
I saw a market study that shows that iPhone apps are far more likely to be paid apps than on any other platform, and that iPhone users are far more likely to *pay* for apps than on any other platform.
This is seen as a *threat* to Android development, as you can't get people to pay for android apps in as significant numbers as on the iPhone.Additionally, the apps on the Android are indisputably of a lower quality in fit, finish and polish than iPhone apps.
Some of that may be the SDK - but I think it is more likely a heritage of the *nix foundations under Android.
Ubuntu is a fairly nice looking desktop OS all things considered, but when you start getting into the apps themselves, those grass-roots, DIY ethics start showing through compared to commercial alternatives on OS X and Win32/64.
The same thing seems true to me with Android apps.
They're just not as highly polished.
They look... linuxish.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513220</id>
	<title>Can the author say Commoditization?</title>
	<author>dirkdodgers</author>
	<datestamp>1261416540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most FOSS a user runs is a FOSS derivative of an already existing proprietary product. Linux was only written years after it was well understood how to develop a modern OS. It was well understood how to develop a desktop environment when Gnome and KDE came along. This is the pattern followed by most end-user FOSS software.</p><p>And why shouldn't it be that way on new mobile platforms? How else do you propose to reward the innovation and labor of those developing software for these platforms? That's not a rhetorical question. If you have a viable alternative, I'd like to hear it. The people who develop these mass market applications need to eat and pay their bills. All the more so the case in the present economic climate. Time is money, and skilled professionals are much less willing to give their time away for free.</p><p>Once the economy recovers, and once the best apps and the best ways of doing things on these new platforms begins to solidify, then we will see FOSS replacements come along for them.</p><p>Would the author rather that device vendors increase the cost of their devices by 1000\% in order to subsidize app developers? Would the author rather that the government tax him in order to subsidize app developers? No? Well in that case he gets to wait until the apps become commoditized and have FOSS replacements.</p><p>Didn't your mother ever tell you that beggars can't be choosers?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most FOSS a user runs is a FOSS derivative of an already existing proprietary product .
Linux was only written years after it was well understood how to develop a modern OS .
It was well understood how to develop a desktop environment when Gnome and KDE came along .
This is the pattern followed by most end-user FOSS software.And why should n't it be that way on new mobile platforms ?
How else do you propose to reward the innovation and labor of those developing software for these platforms ?
That 's not a rhetorical question .
If you have a viable alternative , I 'd like to hear it .
The people who develop these mass market applications need to eat and pay their bills .
All the more so the case in the present economic climate .
Time is money , and skilled professionals are much less willing to give their time away for free.Once the economy recovers , and once the best apps and the best ways of doing things on these new platforms begins to solidify , then we will see FOSS replacements come along for them.Would the author rather that device vendors increase the cost of their devices by 1000 \ % in order to subsidize app developers ?
Would the author rather that the government tax him in order to subsidize app developers ?
No ? Well in that case he gets to wait until the apps become commoditized and have FOSS replacements.Did n't your mother ever tell you that beggars ca n't be choosers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most FOSS a user runs is a FOSS derivative of an already existing proprietary product.
Linux was only written years after it was well understood how to develop a modern OS.
It was well understood how to develop a desktop environment when Gnome and KDE came along.
This is the pattern followed by most end-user FOSS software.And why shouldn't it be that way on new mobile platforms?
How else do you propose to reward the innovation and labor of those developing software for these platforms?
That's not a rhetorical question.
If you have a viable alternative, I'd like to hear it.
The people who develop these mass market applications need to eat and pay their bills.
All the more so the case in the present economic climate.
Time is money, and skilled professionals are much less willing to give their time away for free.Once the economy recovers, and once the best apps and the best ways of doing things on these new platforms begins to solidify, then we will see FOSS replacements come along for them.Would the author rather that device vendors increase the cost of their devices by 1000\% in order to subsidize app developers?
Would the author rather that the government tax him in order to subsidize app developers?
No? Well in that case he gets to wait until the apps become commoditized and have FOSS replacements.Didn't your mother ever tell you that beggars can't be choosers?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512488</id>
	<title>Re:Well, let's see</title>
	<author>Mr. Slippery</author>
	<datestamp>1261413360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The point of open source and free software is that it's supposed to be better than proprietary.</p></div></blockquote><p>The point of free software is <a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html" title="gnu.org" rel="nofollow">freedom</a> [gnu.org].

</p><p>The fact that free software is generally of higher quality is a bonus, one that the "open source" movement focused on. The guy who created the "Open Source Definition" <a href="http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1999/02/msg01641.html" title="debian.org" rel="nofollow">has said it's important to focus on freedom</a> [debian.org], but unfortunately many still think that talking about people's freedom to use, share, and modify software is just too radical.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The point of open source and free software is that it 's supposed to be better than proprietary.The point of free software is freedom [ gnu.org ] .
The fact that free software is generally of higher quality is a bonus , one that the " open source " movement focused on .
The guy who created the " Open Source Definition " has said it 's important to focus on freedom [ debian.org ] , but unfortunately many still think that talking about people 's freedom to use , share , and modify software is just too radical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The point of open source and free software is that it's supposed to be better than proprietary.The point of free software is freedom [gnu.org].
The fact that free software is generally of higher quality is a bonus, one that the "open source" movement focused on.
The guy who created the "Open Source Definition" has said it's important to focus on freedom [debian.org], but unfortunately many still think that talking about people's freedom to use, share, and modify software is just too radical.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30518922</id>
	<title>Re:Uh...build your own free app?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261404000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Neither do I. Not to mention the whole premise of this post is wrong. Right now the ratio of free to paid apps is about 2:1. That's right, there are twice as many free apps as paid. I don't know about you, but to me that doesn't exactly scream "few of these Android apps are free software." to me.</p><p>(source: http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/12/16/google-android-market/)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Neither do I. Not to mention the whole premise of this post is wrong .
Right now the ratio of free to paid apps is about 2 : 1 .
That 's right , there are twice as many free apps as paid .
I do n't know about you , but to me that does n't exactly scream " few of these Android apps are free software .
" to me .
( source : http : //www.techcrunch.com/2009/12/16/google-android-market/ )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Neither do I. Not to mention the whole premise of this post is wrong.
Right now the ratio of free to paid apps is about 2:1.
That's right, there are twice as many free apps as paid.
I don't know about you, but to me that doesn't exactly scream "few of these Android apps are free software.
" to me.
(source: http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/12/16/google-android-market/)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30514170</id>
	<title>Re:Okay, I'll be the one to say it...</title>
	<author>morgan\_greywolf</author>
	<datestamp>1261420800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But, just like the desktop computing environment before, the commercial developers will be followed by OSS developers who just have an itch to scratch that no existing app handles...</p></div><p>Don't you mean that the commercial developers will follow the OSS developers?  Because that's how it actually happened.  Software was generally free of charge and often passed around until some companies decided to start making money from it, going all the way back to ancient versions of Unix and other hackish OSes like ITS, in the 1960s.</p><p>I'd tell you who to go talk to to verify such things, but they'd probably just tell you to get off their lawn...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But , just like the desktop computing environment before , the commercial developers will be followed by OSS developers who just have an itch to scratch that no existing app handles...Do n't you mean that the commercial developers will follow the OSS developers ?
Because that 's how it actually happened .
Software was generally free of charge and often passed around until some companies decided to start making money from it , going all the way back to ancient versions of Unix and other hackish OSes like ITS , in the 1960s.I 'd tell you who to go talk to to verify such things , but they 'd probably just tell you to get off their lawn.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But, just like the desktop computing environment before, the commercial developers will be followed by OSS developers who just have an itch to scratch that no existing app handles...Don't you mean that the commercial developers will follow the OSS developers?
Because that's how it actually happened.
Software was generally free of charge and often passed around until some companies decided to start making money from it, going all the way back to ancient versions of Unix and other hackish OSes like ITS, in the 1960s.I'd tell you who to go talk to to verify such things, but they'd probably just tell you to get off their lawn...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512066</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512564</id>
	<title>Straw Man Argument</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261413720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If, as many believe, mobile phones will become the main computing platform for most of the world</p></div><p>Citation please?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If , as many believe , mobile phones will become the main computing platform for most of the worldCitation please ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If, as many believe, mobile phones will become the main computing platform for most of the worldCitation please?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512404</id>
	<title>Why Android Success Should Be a Threat To F.S.?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261413000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As I see it, there is nothing to worry so much about this division, open source OS and not open source apps. After all, forcing the apps to be open source because the OS is open source, is not the way to go. What the OS does is it manages the hardware and paves the way for the apps to do what they were designed to do. What the designers decide to do with their designed apps is something else. There exist proprietary and commercial software in Linux/BSD as well. How I see it is indeed like an ecosystem, a sort of evolutive selection. Just as new species develop in nature, the same is happening in software and in development. The software models change based on the same principles of selection which is not dictated by some regulation or legislation or SelectionsGodForce.<br>What the comunity can do is continue to do what it has historically demonstrated to do best: develop software of quality using its own mechanism, as we all know how open source development process works. Ultimately in the end, the most balanced software will remain. ('balanced' meaning combinations of whatever criteria the users will deem either valuable or not worthy)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As I see it , there is nothing to worry so much about this division , open source OS and not open source apps .
After all , forcing the apps to be open source because the OS is open source , is not the way to go .
What the OS does is it manages the hardware and paves the way for the apps to do what they were designed to do .
What the designers decide to do with their designed apps is something else .
There exist proprietary and commercial software in Linux/BSD as well .
How I see it is indeed like an ecosystem , a sort of evolutive selection .
Just as new species develop in nature , the same is happening in software and in development .
The software models change based on the same principles of selection which is not dictated by some regulation or legislation or SelectionsGodForce.What the comunity can do is continue to do what it has historically demonstrated to do best : develop software of quality using its own mechanism , as we all know how open source development process works .
Ultimately in the end , the most balanced software will remain .
( 'balanced ' meaning combinations of whatever criteria the users will deem either valuable or not worthy )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I see it, there is nothing to worry so much about this division, open source OS and not open source apps.
After all, forcing the apps to be open source because the OS is open source, is not the way to go.
What the OS does is it manages the hardware and paves the way for the apps to do what they were designed to do.
What the designers decide to do with their designed apps is something else.
There exist proprietary and commercial software in Linux/BSD as well.
How I see it is indeed like an ecosystem, a sort of evolutive selection.
Just as new species develop in nature, the same is happening in software and in development.
The software models change based on the same principles of selection which is not dictated by some regulation or legislation or SelectionsGodForce.What the comunity can do is continue to do what it has historically demonstrated to do best: develop software of quality using its own mechanism, as we all know how open source development process works.
Ultimately in the end, the most balanced software will remain.
('balanced' meaning combinations of whatever criteria the users will deem either valuable or not worthy)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512550</id>
	<title>Re:Well, let's see</title>
	<author>zotz</author>
	<datestamp>1261413660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The point of open source and free software is that it's supposed to be better than proprietary. It's supposed to win on merit, not restrictive licensing or "the community" trying to force things."</p><p>That may be the point of open source software. But I seriously doubt it is the point of Free Software. I have a vague feeling that the point of Free Software is Software Freedom. Complete Software Freedom.  No non-Free Software needed by any software user. Ever. Perhaps I have gotten it wrong all these years though.</p><p>all the best,</p><p>drew</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The point of open source and free software is that it 's supposed to be better than proprietary .
It 's supposed to win on merit , not restrictive licensing or " the community " trying to force things .
" That may be the point of open source software .
But I seriously doubt it is the point of Free Software .
I have a vague feeling that the point of Free Software is Software Freedom .
Complete Software Freedom .
No non-Free Software needed by any software user .
Ever. Perhaps I have gotten it wrong all these years though.all the best,drew</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The point of open source and free software is that it's supposed to be better than proprietary.
It's supposed to win on merit, not restrictive licensing or "the community" trying to force things.
"That may be the point of open source software.
But I seriously doubt it is the point of Free Software.
I have a vague feeling that the point of Free Software is Software Freedom.
Complete Software Freedom.
No non-Free Software needed by any software user.
Ever. Perhaps I have gotten it wrong all these years though.all the best,drew</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30514368</id>
	<title>Re:Okay, I'll be the one to say it...</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1261421700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ummm... writing good, foss apps to do the things you need/want to do? Seems obvious.</p></div><p>Dude, what a stupid idea. What we should do is have a protest rally, where we all wear funny hats, invite Richard Stallman as a guest speaker, and burn our Android phones on a massive bonfire. That's how you effect change and gain sympathy with the masses!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ummm... writing good , foss apps to do the things you need/want to do ?
Seems obvious.Dude , what a stupid idea .
What we should do is have a protest rally , where we all wear funny hats , invite Richard Stallman as a guest speaker , and burn our Android phones on a massive bonfire .
That 's how you effect change and gain sympathy with the masses !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ummm... writing good, foss apps to do the things you need/want to do?
Seems obvious.Dude, what a stupid idea.
What we should do is have a protest rally, where we all wear funny hats, invite Richard Stallman as a guest speaker, and burn our Android phones on a massive bonfire.
That's how you effect change and gain sympathy with the masses!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511946</id>
	<title>Nothing</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1261410240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It still means that more people is using open source. Maybe more important, is what is underneath, you can easily switch propietary "front" apps for open alternatives, but not so easily change whats running below them. And the advantages that give you that basement (probably more secure, auditable, even you could modify it, etc) will increase trust in open source to the ones still reticent to use it.<br><br>Could be nice that all Android apps to be open source, but buiding a mixed ecosystem around it brings more people to the party anyway.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It still means that more people is using open source .
Maybe more important , is what is underneath , you can easily switch propietary " front " apps for open alternatives , but not so easily change whats running below them .
And the advantages that give you that basement ( probably more secure , auditable , even you could modify it , etc ) will increase trust in open source to the ones still reticent to use it.Could be nice that all Android apps to be open source , but buiding a mixed ecosystem around it brings more people to the party anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It still means that more people is using open source.
Maybe more important, is what is underneath, you can easily switch propietary "front" apps for open alternatives, but not so easily change whats running below them.
And the advantages that give you that basement (probably more secure, auditable, even you could modify it, etc) will increase trust in open source to the ones still reticent to use it.Could be nice that all Android apps to be open source, but buiding a mixed ecosystem around it brings more people to the party anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512246</id>
	<title>how is this different?</title>
	<author>naz404</author>
	<datestamp>1261412040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How is this different from running proprietary PHP &amp; MySQL code on a Linux-Apache-MySQL-PHP server?<br> <br>

The platform underneath is FOSS, but what developers choose to do with the open source tools is their business.<br> <br>

I don't have to show you my PHP &amp; MySQL code running on my website which runs either advertisements or subscription-based models.<br> <br>

Why does proprietary software for sale on the Android pose a threat to FOSS?<br> <br>

On the contrary, I say this is a good thing as more people will use the platform as more software is made available to it.<br> <br>

Moreover, Just because software is free doesn't make it good. GIMP is no substitute for Photoshop as any professional graphic designer will attest. I've used GIMP, and it's rather clunky and not enough for my professional needs. And Tremulous/Saurbaten is no Left 4 Dead/Modern Warfare/Crysis.

Now back to the topic of free platforms:<br> <br>

I fell in love with the newest versions of Ubuntu/Linux Mint and with a few customizations and enabling of the Compiz/Fusion desktop eye-candy, my mind was blown away and found 'em even better than Mac desktop interfaces.<br> <br>

When I switched back to WinXP, I felt really, really limited as a lot of features on GNOME + Compiz Fusion were amazing for productivity and VERY VERY pretty.<br> <br>

Anyway, long story short, although I really prefer Linux Mint + GNOME + Compiz Fusion over WinXP, unfortunately, my professional tools of Adobe Photoshop CS4 + Flash CS4 IDE only run on WinXP and don't run on Linux (and don't forget my games! most of them don't run on linux!)<br> <br>

As much as I love the FOSS platform I mentioned above, the stuff I use to make a living and for entertainment doesn't run on it, so tough beans.<br> <br>

If anything, proprietary software should be welcomed with very very open arms on Android as it enriches the ecosystem. What good is a platform if there are not enough decent apps for it? <br> <br>

And PLEASE, people need to make a living from creating software. You can't expect everything to be free so pony up and reward developers for creating good apps by buying their products.<br> <br>

And also, notice that a lot of people developing games for mobile phones now are indie developers. Reward indie developers! Buy their games if they are good and are decently priced!<br> <br>

That is all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How is this different from running proprietary PHP &amp; MySQL code on a Linux-Apache-MySQL-PHP server ?
The platform underneath is FOSS , but what developers choose to do with the open source tools is their business .
I do n't have to show you my PHP &amp; MySQL code running on my website which runs either advertisements or subscription-based models .
Why does proprietary software for sale on the Android pose a threat to FOSS ?
On the contrary , I say this is a good thing as more people will use the platform as more software is made available to it .
Moreover , Just because software is free does n't make it good .
GIMP is no substitute for Photoshop as any professional graphic designer will attest .
I 've used GIMP , and it 's rather clunky and not enough for my professional needs .
And Tremulous/Saurbaten is no Left 4 Dead/Modern Warfare/Crysis .
Now back to the topic of free platforms : I fell in love with the newest versions of Ubuntu/Linux Mint and with a few customizations and enabling of the Compiz/Fusion desktop eye-candy , my mind was blown away and found 'em even better than Mac desktop interfaces .
When I switched back to WinXP , I felt really , really limited as a lot of features on GNOME + Compiz Fusion were amazing for productivity and VERY VERY pretty .
Anyway , long story short , although I really prefer Linux Mint + GNOME + Compiz Fusion over WinXP , unfortunately , my professional tools of Adobe Photoshop CS4 + Flash CS4 IDE only run on WinXP and do n't run on Linux ( and do n't forget my games !
most of them do n't run on linux !
) As much as I love the FOSS platform I mentioned above , the stuff I use to make a living and for entertainment does n't run on it , so tough beans .
If anything , proprietary software should be welcomed with very very open arms on Android as it enriches the ecosystem .
What good is a platform if there are not enough decent apps for it ?
And PLEASE , people need to make a living from creating software .
You ca n't expect everything to be free so pony up and reward developers for creating good apps by buying their products .
And also , notice that a lot of people developing games for mobile phones now are indie developers .
Reward indie developers !
Buy their games if they are good and are decently priced !
That is all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is this different from running proprietary PHP &amp; MySQL code on a Linux-Apache-MySQL-PHP server?
The platform underneath is FOSS, but what developers choose to do with the open source tools is their business.
I don't have to show you my PHP &amp; MySQL code running on my website which runs either advertisements or subscription-based models.
Why does proprietary software for sale on the Android pose a threat to FOSS?
On the contrary, I say this is a good thing as more people will use the platform as more software is made available to it.
Moreover, Just because software is free doesn't make it good.
GIMP is no substitute for Photoshop as any professional graphic designer will attest.
I've used GIMP, and it's rather clunky and not enough for my professional needs.
And Tremulous/Saurbaten is no Left 4 Dead/Modern Warfare/Crysis.
Now back to the topic of free platforms: 

I fell in love with the newest versions of Ubuntu/Linux Mint and with a few customizations and enabling of the Compiz/Fusion desktop eye-candy, my mind was blown away and found 'em even better than Mac desktop interfaces.
When I switched back to WinXP, I felt really, really limited as a lot of features on GNOME + Compiz Fusion were amazing for productivity and VERY VERY pretty.
Anyway, long story short, although I really prefer Linux Mint + GNOME + Compiz Fusion over WinXP, unfortunately, my professional tools of Adobe Photoshop CS4 + Flash CS4 IDE only run on WinXP and don't run on Linux (and don't forget my games!
most of them don't run on linux!
) 

As much as I love the FOSS platform I mentioned above, the stuff I use to make a living and for entertainment doesn't run on it, so tough beans.
If anything, proprietary software should be welcomed with very very open arms on Android as it enriches the ecosystem.
What good is a platform if there are not enough decent apps for it?
And PLEASE, people need to make a living from creating software.
You can't expect everything to be free so pony up and reward developers for creating good apps by buying their products.
And also, notice that a lot of people developing games for mobile phones now are indie developers.
Reward indie developers!
Buy their games if they are good and are decently priced!
That is all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30516130</id>
	<title>That's the normal</title>
	<author>OpenSourced</author>
	<datestamp>1261386660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's the logical situation. The basics of computing, the foundations, should be served by free, open source software, because they are a general-purpose common ground that can be better served by a standards-compliant infrastructure-oriented infrastructure.</p><p>Then the special-purpose applications, with a smaller market or a market more interested in service or immediacy or whatever, should be served by non free (in either of the two senses) apps.</p><p>Not everything will be OSS. I, for one, would be happy to reach point when there is a layer of broadly used OSS that guarantees basic freedoms for everybody.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the logical situation .
The basics of computing , the foundations , should be served by free , open source software , because they are a general-purpose common ground that can be better served by a standards-compliant infrastructure-oriented infrastructure.Then the special-purpose applications , with a smaller market or a market more interested in service or immediacy or whatever , should be served by non free ( in either of the two senses ) apps.Not everything will be OSS .
I , for one , would be happy to reach point when there is a layer of broadly used OSS that guarantees basic freedoms for everybody .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the logical situation.
The basics of computing, the foundations, should be served by free, open source software, because they are a general-purpose common ground that can be better served by a standards-compliant infrastructure-oriented infrastructure.Then the special-purpose applications, with a smaller market or a market more interested in service or immediacy or whatever, should be served by non free (in either of the two senses) apps.Not everything will be OSS.
I, for one, would be happy to reach point when there is a layer of broadly used OSS that guarantees basic freedoms for everybody.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512652</id>
	<title>green cheese logic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261414140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"If, as many believe, mobile phones will become the main computing platform for most of the world, that could be a big problem for the health of the free software ecosystem."</p><p>Yeah, and if I go to the bathroom, the moon might be made of green cheese. But it's not, and I have no support, thus making such a claim ridiculous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" If , as many believe , mobile phones will become the main computing platform for most of the world , that could be a big problem for the health of the free software ecosystem .
" Yeah , and if I go to the bathroom , the moon might be made of green cheese .
But it 's not , and I have no support , thus making such a claim ridiculous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If, as many believe, mobile phones will become the main computing platform for most of the world, that could be a big problem for the health of the free software ecosystem.
"Yeah, and if I go to the bathroom, the moon might be made of green cheese.
But it's not, and I have no support, thus making such a claim ridiculous.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30527102</id>
	<title>no surprise...</title>
	<author>hitmark</author>
	<datestamp>1261512720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>as this is basically danger 2.0...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>as this is basically danger 2.0.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>as this is basically danger 2.0...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512160</id>
	<title>Easy</title>
	<author>mustafap</author>
	<datestamp>1261411500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;So what, if anything, should the community be doing about it?"</p><p>Support open hardware platforms like Neo. Buy the kit, or donate to people working on it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; So what , if anything , should the community be doing about it ?
" Support open hardware platforms like Neo .
Buy the kit , or donate to people working on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;So what, if anything, should the community be doing about it?
"Support open hardware platforms like Neo.
Buy the kit, or donate to people working on it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30516488</id>
	<title>A few things...</title>
	<author>joh</author>
	<datestamp>1261388340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First, it may be worthwhile to ask what's actually the problem: Is there really a lack of free (as in speech) software for Android or is there just a lack of commercial software for Linux? I don't know the numbers, but there are *many* commercial applications out there for other systems and not so many for Linux. Maybe it's not Android that's special but Linux.</p><p>Second, and this is important, the difference between Android and Linux is that with Android there is a *market* for commercial software. If you have a good idea and have written a good piece of software and then have  the choice to either give it away for free or (with not so much more effort) *sell* it and get some money for all the time you have put into it, all Free Software enthusiasm suddenly is just one vector among others. And since the times aren't that lush and many developers just like a bit of additional income...</p><p>Third (I hate to say this): The FOSS community isn't static. There are veterans now, people who have put much time and effort into code and managing things and some of them would like to make some money now for a change without having to feel guilty about it. There *are* people who suddenly buy a Mac and start to develop iPhone apps and dream of getting rich or code Android apps and hope to make some money on the side. I mean, there *is* such a thing like a burn-out syndrome even with FOSS developers. Thinking "I've started to hate all this stuff a long time ago, now let's just pretend it's business and make some money" is not that rare a thing to happen. Linux can eat you and you may want to eat back.</p><p>Fourth: The iPhone started all this. All of a sudden having a great idea for a cool app (or even a killer app) and writing it and making money from coding away in your basement became a meme. And what the hell, everyone does it, so try to sell what you got. With Linux and traditional Unix FOSS sharing was what everyone did. Now it's selling. Don't pretend that you're immune against group pressure or bills piling up on your desk.</p><p>Fifth: This is an exploding market and keeping your knowledge to yourself instead of giving your well documented sources away and have others standing on your shoulders is only natural. I mean, only very few of those apps are in any way pushing the state of the art. It's just applied industriousness and having others learn from your code and make money while you don't even get the fame is lame. Linux is a cult, Android is just Google and even if Goggle is not evil, it's about money and not about freedom.</p><p>Sixth: All of this is bullshit. FOSS is here to stay and if there are 1000 fart apps for every useful piece of Open Software noone cares a shit. In the worst case it's like with FOSS on Windows just with Linux beneath it instead of Windows. No reason to whine, surely.</p><p>But what others here have said about the hardware lock-in is true. This is a very real problem and sooner or later the time will be ripe for Open Hardware. Without that FOSS will be just a service for Google and people thinking "I can't live with this but I can try to live off it" will rule and this is not the dumbest approach.</p><p>Oh, and the smart-phone using population is different from PC-users. For one, it's much larger. But it's also much more interested in just using and consuming instead of tinkering and creating. There is a lesson to learn from that: Open Content will become more important than Open Software.</p><p>And of course only about 3 people will read all of this and I'll have wasted half an hour of my time (currently worth about $35 if I had been working instead) for free. And still.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , it may be worthwhile to ask what 's actually the problem : Is there really a lack of free ( as in speech ) software for Android or is there just a lack of commercial software for Linux ?
I do n't know the numbers , but there are * many * commercial applications out there for other systems and not so many for Linux .
Maybe it 's not Android that 's special but Linux.Second , and this is important , the difference between Android and Linux is that with Android there is a * market * for commercial software .
If you have a good idea and have written a good piece of software and then have the choice to either give it away for free or ( with not so much more effort ) * sell * it and get some money for all the time you have put into it , all Free Software enthusiasm suddenly is just one vector among others .
And since the times are n't that lush and many developers just like a bit of additional income...Third ( I hate to say this ) : The FOSS community is n't static .
There are veterans now , people who have put much time and effort into code and managing things and some of them would like to make some money now for a change without having to feel guilty about it .
There * are * people who suddenly buy a Mac and start to develop iPhone apps and dream of getting rich or code Android apps and hope to make some money on the side .
I mean , there * is * such a thing like a burn-out syndrome even with FOSS developers .
Thinking " I 've started to hate all this stuff a long time ago , now let 's just pretend it 's business and make some money " is not that rare a thing to happen .
Linux can eat you and you may want to eat back.Fourth : The iPhone started all this .
All of a sudden having a great idea for a cool app ( or even a killer app ) and writing it and making money from coding away in your basement became a meme .
And what the hell , everyone does it , so try to sell what you got .
With Linux and traditional Unix FOSS sharing was what everyone did .
Now it 's selling .
Do n't pretend that you 're immune against group pressure or bills piling up on your desk.Fifth : This is an exploding market and keeping your knowledge to yourself instead of giving your well documented sources away and have others standing on your shoulders is only natural .
I mean , only very few of those apps are in any way pushing the state of the art .
It 's just applied industriousness and having others learn from your code and make money while you do n't even get the fame is lame .
Linux is a cult , Android is just Google and even if Goggle is not evil , it 's about money and not about freedom.Sixth : All of this is bullshit .
FOSS is here to stay and if there are 1000 fart apps for every useful piece of Open Software noone cares a shit .
In the worst case it 's like with FOSS on Windows just with Linux beneath it instead of Windows .
No reason to whine , surely.But what others here have said about the hardware lock-in is true .
This is a very real problem and sooner or later the time will be ripe for Open Hardware .
Without that FOSS will be just a service for Google and people thinking " I ca n't live with this but I can try to live off it " will rule and this is not the dumbest approach.Oh , and the smart-phone using population is different from PC-users .
For one , it 's much larger .
But it 's also much more interested in just using and consuming instead of tinkering and creating .
There is a lesson to learn from that : Open Content will become more important than Open Software.And of course only about 3 people will read all of this and I 'll have wasted half an hour of my time ( currently worth about $ 35 if I had been working instead ) for free .
And still .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, it may be worthwhile to ask what's actually the problem: Is there really a lack of free (as in speech) software for Android or is there just a lack of commercial software for Linux?
I don't know the numbers, but there are *many* commercial applications out there for other systems and not so many for Linux.
Maybe it's not Android that's special but Linux.Second, and this is important, the difference between Android and Linux is that with Android there is a *market* for commercial software.
If you have a good idea and have written a good piece of software and then have  the choice to either give it away for free or (with not so much more effort) *sell* it and get some money for all the time you have put into it, all Free Software enthusiasm suddenly is just one vector among others.
And since the times aren't that lush and many developers just like a bit of additional income...Third (I hate to say this): The FOSS community isn't static.
There are veterans now, people who have put much time and effort into code and managing things and some of them would like to make some money now for a change without having to feel guilty about it.
There *are* people who suddenly buy a Mac and start to develop iPhone apps and dream of getting rich or code Android apps and hope to make some money on the side.
I mean, there *is* such a thing like a burn-out syndrome even with FOSS developers.
Thinking "I've started to hate all this stuff a long time ago, now let's just pretend it's business and make some money" is not that rare a thing to happen.
Linux can eat you and you may want to eat back.Fourth: The iPhone started all this.
All of a sudden having a great idea for a cool app (or even a killer app) and writing it and making money from coding away in your basement became a meme.
And what the hell, everyone does it, so try to sell what you got.
With Linux and traditional Unix FOSS sharing was what everyone did.
Now it's selling.
Don't pretend that you're immune against group pressure or bills piling up on your desk.Fifth: This is an exploding market and keeping your knowledge to yourself instead of giving your well documented sources away and have others standing on your shoulders is only natural.
I mean, only very few of those apps are in any way pushing the state of the art.
It's just applied industriousness and having others learn from your code and make money while you don't even get the fame is lame.
Linux is a cult, Android is just Google and even if Goggle is not evil, it's about money and not about freedom.Sixth: All of this is bullshit.
FOSS is here to stay and if there are 1000 fart apps for every useful piece of Open Software noone cares a shit.
In the worst case it's like with FOSS on Windows just with Linux beneath it instead of Windows.
No reason to whine, surely.But what others here have said about the hardware lock-in is true.
This is a very real problem and sooner or later the time will be ripe for Open Hardware.
Without that FOSS will be just a service for Google and people thinking "I can't live with this but I can try to live off it" will rule and this is not the dumbest approach.Oh, and the smart-phone using population is different from PC-users.
For one, it's much larger.
But it's also much more interested in just using and consuming instead of tinkering and creating.
There is a lesson to learn from that: Open Content will become more important than Open Software.And of course only about 3 people will read all of this and I'll have wasted half an hour of my time (currently worth about $35 if I had been working instead) for free.
And still.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30515162</id>
	<title>Re:Actually, summary is wrong.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261425120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"free apps" != "free software".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" free apps " ! = " free software " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"free apps" != "free software".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511978</id>
	<title>Maemo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261410360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Vote with your wallets. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maemo" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Maemo</a> [wikipedia.org], the most open internet-tablet/smartphone platform currently on the market (assuming OpenMoko is dead). Not perfectly open, but a lot better than the Android.</p><p>From the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia\_770\_Internet\_Tablet" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">770</a> [wikipedia.org] in 2005, to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia\_N800" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">N800</a> [wikipedia.org] and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia\_N810" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">N810</a> [wikipedia.org] in 2007 to the latest release of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia\_N900" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">N900</a> [wikipedia.org] this year.</p><p>There's even <a href="http://armdevices.net/2009/12/06/optima-op5-e-maemo-linux-mid-video-review/" title="armdevices.net" rel="nofollow">third-party clone</a> [armdevices.net] which the platform needs to become truely mainstream.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Vote with your wallets .
Maemo [ wikipedia.org ] , the most open internet-tablet/smartphone platform currently on the market ( assuming OpenMoko is dead ) .
Not perfectly open , but a lot better than the Android.From the 770 [ wikipedia.org ] in 2005 , to the N800 [ wikipedia.org ] and N810 [ wikipedia.org ] in 2007 to the latest release of the N900 [ wikipedia.org ] this year.There 's even third-party clone [ armdevices.net ] which the platform needs to become truely mainstream .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vote with your wallets.
Maemo [wikipedia.org], the most open internet-tablet/smartphone platform currently on the market (assuming OpenMoko is dead).
Not perfectly open, but a lot better than the Android.From the 770 [wikipedia.org] in 2005, to the N800 [wikipedia.org] and N810 [wikipedia.org] in 2007 to the latest release of the N900 [wikipedia.org] this year.There's even third-party clone [armdevices.net] which the platform needs to become truely mainstream.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513920</id>
	<title>NOT!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261419720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mobile phones will not ever replace desktop and laptop PCs.  The performance is lacking, and the screens are too small.  Its more likely that netbooks will evolve into smaller and more powerfull portable PCs, and will include the functions of a cell phone.  Also, people need to realize that they don't need to be (nor is it a good thing!) connected to friends and family 24/7/365 via phone and internet!  Staying in touch is important, and not a bad thing, but far too many people today take it to an unhealthy extreme!  Such as using a cell phone while driving.  Doing so has been proved to as dangerous (more so in some cases) than driving drunk.  Texting while driving is even worse, and even more stupid.</p><p>And I and many others consider use of cell phones in theaters, restaurants, and even stores to be a rude and obnoxious bad habit!  Hang up once in a while, and concentrate on what you are doing!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mobile phones will not ever replace desktop and laptop PCs .
The performance is lacking , and the screens are too small .
Its more likely that netbooks will evolve into smaller and more powerfull portable PCs , and will include the functions of a cell phone .
Also , people need to realize that they do n't need to be ( nor is it a good thing !
) connected to friends and family 24/7/365 via phone and internet !
Staying in touch is important , and not a bad thing , but far too many people today take it to an unhealthy extreme !
Such as using a cell phone while driving .
Doing so has been proved to as dangerous ( more so in some cases ) than driving drunk .
Texting while driving is even worse , and even more stupid.And I and many others consider use of cell phones in theaters , restaurants , and even stores to be a rude and obnoxious bad habit !
Hang up once in a while , and concentrate on what you are doing !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mobile phones will not ever replace desktop and laptop PCs.
The performance is lacking, and the screens are too small.
Its more likely that netbooks will evolve into smaller and more powerfull portable PCs, and will include the functions of a cell phone.
Also, people need to realize that they don't need to be (nor is it a good thing!
) connected to friends and family 24/7/365 via phone and internet!
Staying in touch is important, and not a bad thing, but far too many people today take it to an unhealthy extreme!
Such as using a cell phone while driving.
Doing so has been proved to as dangerous (more so in some cases) than driving drunk.
Texting while driving is even worse, and even more stupid.And I and many others consider use of cell phones in theaters, restaurants, and even stores to be a rude and obnoxious bad habit!
Hang up once in a while, and concentrate on what you are doing!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512304</id>
	<title>Did I miss the memo?</title>
	<author>MonsterTrimble</author>
	<datestamp>1261412400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Instead, we seem to be witnessing the birth of a <b>new hybrid stack</b> &mdash; open source underneath, and proprietary on top.</p></div><p>
Maybe I haven't had enough coffee yet, but HUH? When did this become new? I've been running Opera on my Kubuntu box since day one (back in '06). I also do believe Lotus Symphony is closed source (or was at one point). Irregardless, it's not new. <br>
<br>
And I also want to echo what other people have said: They're developing closed-source apps to run on an open-source system. Bravo! Good on them. In the end, as long as they respect the licensing contraints, it's all good in my book.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Instead , we seem to be witnessing the birth of a new hybrid stack    open source underneath , and proprietary on top .
Maybe I have n't had enough coffee yet , but HUH ?
When did this become new ?
I 've been running Opera on my Kubuntu box since day one ( back in '06 ) .
I also do believe Lotus Symphony is closed source ( or was at one point ) .
Irregardless , it 's not new .
And I also want to echo what other people have said : They 're developing closed-source apps to run on an open-source system .
Bravo ! Good on them .
In the end , as long as they respect the licensing contraints , it 's all good in my book .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Instead, we seem to be witnessing the birth of a new hybrid stack — open source underneath, and proprietary on top.
Maybe I haven't had enough coffee yet, but HUH?
When did this become new?
I've been running Opera on my Kubuntu box since day one (back in '06).
I also do believe Lotus Symphony is closed source (or was at one point).
Irregardless, it's not new.
And I also want to echo what other people have said: They're developing closed-source apps to run on an open-source system.
Bravo! Good on them.
In the end, as long as they respect the licensing contraints, it's all good in my book.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513530</id>
	<title>Re:Uh...build your own free app?</title>
	<author>verrol</author>
	<datestamp>1261418040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>agreed.  isn't the whole foss thing about flexibility and freedom?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>agreed .
is n't the whole foss thing about flexibility and freedom ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>agreed.
isn't the whole foss thing about flexibility and freedom?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30516598</id>
	<title>Re:Not such a problem?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261388940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hear you bro.  Me?  I love women, but to each his own.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hear you bro .
Me ? I love women , but to each his own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hear you bro.
Me?  I love women, but to each his own.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512328</id>
	<title>Re:This is silly</title>
	<author>Enderandrew</author>
	<datestamp>1261412580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't tell anyone, but Android is Linux. It's a huge secret!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't tell anyone , but Android is Linux .
It 's a huge secret !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't tell anyone, but Android is Linux.
It's a huge secret!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30517758</id>
	<title>What?</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1261395000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Am I the only one that is completely confused?</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I the only one that is completely confused ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I the only one that is completely confused?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513118</id>
	<title>Locked OS more dangerous than bells and whistles</title>
	<author>foregather</author>
	<datestamp>1261416180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't care if the phone makers want to rebirth the shareware market of the early '90s; eventually people will get tired of paying per feature and expect the good ones to be rolled into the core functionality of the OS or the larger applications they use, ala winzip.</p><p>What worries me about android is how all the phones they sell with it still need to be jail broken before you can make use of the freedoms in the free operating system. Surely that's a greater threat to your control over the software in your life than the fact that people are also willing to sell you closed software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't care if the phone makers want to rebirth the shareware market of the early '90s ; eventually people will get tired of paying per feature and expect the good ones to be rolled into the core functionality of the OS or the larger applications they use , ala winzip.What worries me about android is how all the phones they sell with it still need to be jail broken before you can make use of the freedoms in the free operating system .
Surely that 's a greater threat to your control over the software in your life than the fact that people are also willing to sell you closed software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't care if the phone makers want to rebirth the shareware market of the early '90s; eventually people will get tired of paying per feature and expect the good ones to be rolled into the core functionality of the OS or the larger applications they use, ala winzip.What worries me about android is how all the phones they sell with it still need to be jail broken before you can make use of the freedoms in the free operating system.
Surely that's a greater threat to your control over the software in your life than the fact that people are also willing to sell you closed software.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512044</id>
	<title>Re:Okay, I'll be the one to say it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261410720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There really hasn't been a good one to copy from yet, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There really has n't been a good one to copy from yet , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There really hasn't been a good one to copy from yet, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513002</id>
	<title>Re:Okay, I'll be the one to say it...</title>
	<author>LordVader717</author>
	<datestamp>1261415700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I still don't see the problem, as it's still perfectly simple to install software by other means. If you mobile contract doesn't give you unrestricted access to the internet, that's a problem with your carrier, not with the ecosystem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I still do n't see the problem , as it 's still perfectly simple to install software by other means .
If you mobile contract does n't give you unrestricted access to the internet , that 's a problem with your carrier , not with the ecosystem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I still don't see the problem, as it's still perfectly simple to install software by other means.
If you mobile contract doesn't give you unrestricted access to the internet, that's a problem with your carrier, not with the ecosystem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512102</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513770</id>
	<title>Re:Uh...build your own free app?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261419060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Me either. Cedega and Bordeaux are paid software created to run on Linux, and Wine (which is open source) competes with it nicely. Big deal. If they use open-source code to create their product, the GPL will make them share the code (and the EFF will take them to court if they're caught); if not, they're entitled to charge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Me either .
Cedega and Bordeaux are paid software created to run on Linux , and Wine ( which is open source ) competes with it nicely .
Big deal .
If they use open-source code to create their product , the GPL will make them share the code ( and the EFF will take them to court if they 're caught ) ; if not , they 're entitled to charge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Me either.
Cedega and Bordeaux are paid software created to run on Linux, and Wine (which is open source) competes with it nicely.
Big deal.
If they use open-source code to create their product, the GPL will make them share the code (and the EFF will take them to court if they're caught); if not, they're entitled to charge.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513646</id>
	<title>Re:Well, let's see</title>
	<author>siride</author>
	<datestamp>1261418520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>People have to get work done.  And unlike in the political sphere, the benefits of software freedom are meager at best and also don't have a strong philosophical basis supporting them.  What rights are being violated by not having open source code?  What liberties are really being given to everyday users by having source code they can look at and modify?  The answer to both those questions is somewhere between "none" and "those of minimal importance" or "only important to a very small subset of the population".  Given that OSS has, on the whole, failed to produce good software and has had nearly two decades to do it, I'd say that focusing on freedom and other BS is just going to dig the grave further.</htmltext>
<tokenext>People have to get work done .
And unlike in the political sphere , the benefits of software freedom are meager at best and also do n't have a strong philosophical basis supporting them .
What rights are being violated by not having open source code ?
What liberties are really being given to everyday users by having source code they can look at and modify ?
The answer to both those questions is somewhere between " none " and " those of minimal importance " or " only important to a very small subset of the population " .
Given that OSS has , on the whole , failed to produce good software and has had nearly two decades to do it , I 'd say that focusing on freedom and other BS is just going to dig the grave further .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People have to get work done.
And unlike in the political sphere, the benefits of software freedom are meager at best and also don't have a strong philosophical basis supporting them.
What rights are being violated by not having open source code?
What liberties are really being given to everyday users by having source code they can look at and modify?
The answer to both those questions is somewhere between "none" and "those of minimal importance" or "only important to a very small subset of the population".
Given that OSS has, on the whole, failed to produce good software and has had nearly two decades to do it, I'd say that focusing on freedom and other BS is just going to dig the grave further.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512488</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512680</id>
	<title>Re:Uh...build your own free app?</title>
	<author>Rob Y.</author>
	<datestamp>1261414380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Y'know what, OSS licenses offer more freedom than some OSS supporters want.  Too bad.  This is just like complaining about 'Tivo-ization'.  Tivo follwed the rules, and if anything, was good for OSS (if only because we could say, "y'know the Tivo - that runs Linux").  Nothing Google or Tivo did <i>prevented</i> anybody from developing Open Source applications (though they couldn't write 'em to <i>run</i> on Tivo hardware), and both made contributions to the state of the art.</p><p>The funny thing is that closed source apps are appearing on Android and not on Linux 'proper'.  Is that just because smartphone apps are trendy now, or because of some serious difference between the platforms (either technically or in how they're used).  I suspect it's a combination.  First of all, there's more free stuff already available on the traditional Linux desktop.  It does more than your typical phone app, and would be a lot harder to compete with.  And then there's the distro/desktop fragmentation issue.  Multiple Android versions are already spurring complaints about 'fragmentation', but they're nothing compared to Gnome vs KDE, Ubuntu vs [everything else].  Ubuntu 8.10 vs 9.4 vs 9.10, etc...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Y'know what , OSS licenses offer more freedom than some OSS supporters want .
Too bad .
This is just like complaining about 'Tivo-ization' .
Tivo follwed the rules , and if anything , was good for OSS ( if only because we could say , " y'know the Tivo - that runs Linux " ) .
Nothing Google or Tivo did prevented anybody from developing Open Source applications ( though they could n't write 'em to run on Tivo hardware ) , and both made contributions to the state of the art.The funny thing is that closed source apps are appearing on Android and not on Linux 'proper' .
Is that just because smartphone apps are trendy now , or because of some serious difference between the platforms ( either technically or in how they 're used ) .
I suspect it 's a combination .
First of all , there 's more free stuff already available on the traditional Linux desktop .
It does more than your typical phone app , and would be a lot harder to compete with .
And then there 's the distro/desktop fragmentation issue .
Multiple Android versions are already spurring complaints about 'fragmentation ' , but they 're nothing compared to Gnome vs KDE , Ubuntu vs [ everything else ] .
Ubuntu 8.10 vs 9.4 vs 9.10 , etc.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Y'know what, OSS licenses offer more freedom than some OSS supporters want.
Too bad.
This is just like complaining about 'Tivo-ization'.
Tivo follwed the rules, and if anything, was good for OSS (if only because we could say, "y'know the Tivo - that runs Linux").
Nothing Google or Tivo did prevented anybody from developing Open Source applications (though they couldn't write 'em to run on Tivo hardware), and both made contributions to the state of the art.The funny thing is that closed source apps are appearing on Android and not on Linux 'proper'.
Is that just because smartphone apps are trendy now, or because of some serious difference between the platforms (either technically or in how they're used).
I suspect it's a combination.
First of all, there's more free stuff already available on the traditional Linux desktop.
It does more than your typical phone app, and would be a lot harder to compete with.
And then there's the distro/desktop fragmentation issue.
Multiple Android versions are already spurring complaints about 'fragmentation', but they're nothing compared to Gnome vs KDE, Ubuntu vs [everything else].
Ubuntu 8.10 vs 9.4 vs 9.10, etc...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512244</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30538914</id>
	<title>Re:Uh...build your own free app?</title>
	<author>ryusen</author>
	<datestamp>1259748600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers!

but yeah seriously... who the F cares?  if people want to write free software for the system, cool! if not, cool!  Also, i'm pretty sure as time passes, someone will decide, "This app is cool, i bet i can make a free one that' just as good."</htmltext>
<tokenext>Developers !
Developers ! Developers !
Developers ! Developers !
Developers ! Developers !
but yeah seriously... who the F cares ?
if people want to write free software for the system , cool !
if not , cool !
Also , i 'm pretty sure as time passes , someone will decide , " This app is cool , i bet i can make a free one that ' just as good .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Developers!
Developers! Developers!
Developers! Developers!
Developers! Developers!
but yeah seriously... who the F cares?
if people want to write free software for the system, cool!
if not, cool!
Also, i'm pretty sure as time passes, someone will decide, "This app is cool, i bet i can make a free one that' just as good.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30538526</id>
	<title>Re:This is silly</title>
	<author>mqduck</author>
	<datestamp>1259746200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think what the OP was trying to express is that charging for your little app and keeping the code proprietary has become the social norm for Android developers. FOSS *culture* hasn't really taken root there, and I agree that it's unfortunate. I don't think it's anything to worry about, though. It's just a matter of time.</p><p>Unfortunately, that's not the case with more insular online communities, where a culture of ownership takes hold and newcomers go along with and emulate and perpetuate it. Notice how FAQs on GameFAQs usually have huge copyright notices and warnings forbidding you from hosting a copy of it and claims of employing software to hunt down plagiarists. Or look at Zelda Classic, where people will lock down their custom quests with passwords to keep others from editing them. So I can appreciate a fear of a culture of ownership taking hold among Android developers but, like I said, it's only a matter of time before open source software becomes a dominant player, IMO.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think what the OP was trying to express is that charging for your little app and keeping the code proprietary has become the social norm for Android developers .
FOSS * culture * has n't really taken root there , and I agree that it 's unfortunate .
I do n't think it 's anything to worry about , though .
It 's just a matter of time.Unfortunately , that 's not the case with more insular online communities , where a culture of ownership takes hold and newcomers go along with and emulate and perpetuate it .
Notice how FAQs on GameFAQs usually have huge copyright notices and warnings forbidding you from hosting a copy of it and claims of employing software to hunt down plagiarists .
Or look at Zelda Classic , where people will lock down their custom quests with passwords to keep others from editing them .
So I can appreciate a fear of a culture of ownership taking hold among Android developers but , like I said , it 's only a matter of time before open source software becomes a dominant player , IMO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think what the OP was trying to express is that charging for your little app and keeping the code proprietary has become the social norm for Android developers.
FOSS *culture* hasn't really taken root there, and I agree that it's unfortunate.
I don't think it's anything to worry about, though.
It's just a matter of time.Unfortunately, that's not the case with more insular online communities, where a culture of ownership takes hold and newcomers go along with and emulate and perpetuate it.
Notice how FAQs on GameFAQs usually have huge copyright notices and warnings forbidding you from hosting a copy of it and claims of employing software to hunt down plagiarists.
Or look at Zelda Classic, where people will lock down their custom quests with passwords to keep others from editing them.
So I can appreciate a fear of a culture of ownership taking hold among Android developers but, like I said, it's only a matter of time before open source software becomes a dominant player, IMO.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30519618</id>
	<title>This is great!</title>
	<author>awyeah</author>
	<datestamp>1261409280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First, who cares if the apps are FOSS or not.  I sure don't.  I care whether the apps are <i>good</i>.</p><p>I'm a die-hard BlackBerry user and have been for years.  In the short period of time that the iPhone has been out, a hundred thousand apps have been written for it, far more than exist for BlackBerry, which has been able to run 3rd-party apps for far longer.  The problem is, I don't have any desire to buy an iPhone, for a multitude of reasons, but I've been pretty impressed with (and a little jealous of) the selection of available <i>useful</i> applications.</p><p>From this post, I was most impressed with the 20,000 figure.  Android has not been out very long, and there's already that many apps?  I don't know anything about the quality of the apps, but that impresses me.  That's a lot of momentum.</p><p>Finally, a phone (platform) that has a good selection of apps that isn't the iPhone!  Hooray!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First , who cares if the apps are FOSS or not .
I sure do n't .
I care whether the apps are good.I 'm a die-hard BlackBerry user and have been for years .
In the short period of time that the iPhone has been out , a hundred thousand apps have been written for it , far more than exist for BlackBerry , which has been able to run 3rd-party apps for far longer .
The problem is , I do n't have any desire to buy an iPhone , for a multitude of reasons , but I 've been pretty impressed with ( and a little jealous of ) the selection of available useful applications.From this post , I was most impressed with the 20,000 figure .
Android has not been out very long , and there 's already that many apps ?
I do n't know anything about the quality of the apps , but that impresses me .
That 's a lot of momentum.Finally , a phone ( platform ) that has a good selection of apps that is n't the iPhone !
Hooray !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, who cares if the apps are FOSS or not.
I sure don't.
I care whether the apps are good.I'm a die-hard BlackBerry user and have been for years.
In the short period of time that the iPhone has been out, a hundred thousand apps have been written for it, far more than exist for BlackBerry, which has been able to run 3rd-party apps for far longer.
The problem is, I don't have any desire to buy an iPhone, for a multitude of reasons, but I've been pretty impressed with (and a little jealous of) the selection of available useful applications.From this post, I was most impressed with the 20,000 figure.
Android has not been out very long, and there's already that many apps?
I don't know anything about the quality of the apps, but that impresses me.
That's a lot of momentum.Finally, a phone (platform) that has a good selection of apps that isn't the iPhone!
Hooray!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30515068</id>
	<title>Re:Uh...build your own free app?</title>
	<author>Austerity Empowers</author>
	<datestamp>1261424700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The obvious solution. People know people who have friends they believe got rich making iPhone apps or android apps. Maybe that's true, but the guy I know who has one of the most successful iPhone apps still has his (unrelated) day job, and spends his evening supporting barely paying customers.</p><p>I suspect once the gold rush ends, we'll see people making fewer, more functional apps, that are open source. This is not entirely dissimilar to the PC market, where we had a gold rush of shrinkwrap, and then most of those functions being replaced either by built in OS functionality, or by free software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The obvious solution .
People know people who have friends they believe got rich making iPhone apps or android apps .
Maybe that 's true , but the guy I know who has one of the most successful iPhone apps still has his ( unrelated ) day job , and spends his evening supporting barely paying customers.I suspect once the gold rush ends , we 'll see people making fewer , more functional apps , that are open source .
This is not entirely dissimilar to the PC market , where we had a gold rush of shrinkwrap , and then most of those functions being replaced either by built in OS functionality , or by free software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The obvious solution.
People know people who have friends they believe got rich making iPhone apps or android apps.
Maybe that's true, but the guy I know who has one of the most successful iPhone apps still has his (unrelated) day job, and spends his evening supporting barely paying customers.I suspect once the gold rush ends, we'll see people making fewer, more functional apps, that are open source.
This is not entirely dissimilar to the PC market, where we had a gold rush of shrinkwrap, and then most of those functions being replaced either by built in OS functionality, or by free software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511866</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512220</id>
	<title>If it's a good app, I think you can charge for it.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261411860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I mean, if it has major uses to it, it doesn't need to be free.  You can charge a low reasonable price for it.</p><p>- PC</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , if it has major uses to it , it does n't need to be free .
You can charge a low reasonable price for it.- PC</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, if it has major uses to it, it doesn't need to be free.
You can charge a low reasonable price for it.- PC</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512290</id>
	<title>Nothing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261412280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The primary reason Linux developed is Microsoft's monopolistic tendencies.  The market wants competition.  I see no indication that Android prevents competition among apps.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The primary reason Linux developed is Microsoft 's monopolistic tendencies .
The market wants competition .
I see no indication that Android prevents competition among apps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The primary reason Linux developed is Microsoft's monopolistic tendencies.
The market wants competition.
I see no indication that Android prevents competition among apps.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513412</id>
	<title>Re:Actually, summary is wrong.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1261417500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I could be misreading the stats you linked to, but my reading is that you're looking at free-as-in-beer, and the original complaint dealt with free-as-in-speech - i.e., is the app free or open source?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I could be misreading the stats you linked to , but my reading is that you 're looking at free-as-in-beer , and the original complaint dealt with free-as-in-speech - i.e. , is the app free or open source ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I could be misreading the stats you linked to, but my reading is that you're looking at free-as-in-beer, and the original complaint dealt with free-as-in-speech - i.e., is the app free or open source?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512224</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512910</id>
	<title>What you should do is adjust your thinking</title>
	<author>EriktheGreen</author>
	<datestamp>1261415400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a fine illustration of the mindset of a lot of Linux and open source "fans".
<p>
There's a self identification happening here with the "open source community" for a number of reasons, and it's a common occurrence among a lot of open source advocates.  What usually happens is that fans end up with a binary view of the software production system... specifically the idea that there exists an "us and them" conflict between open source and commercial software, and between the authors of same.  It's kind of the same impulse that makes people identify with a sports team based in their city or state as "their" team, or advocating their own brand of computer for emotional rather than rational reasons.
</p><p>
Humans want to belong to groups, they get a good feeling from it.  So even in cases where clear "us and them" groups don't exist, they perceive them, since without a group they have nowhere to belong.
</p><p>
There are a lot of reasons for this both biological and social.  The phenomenon seems to be a human universal, though.
</p><p>
To make things more complicated, once a person identifies his or herself  with a group, then they personalize attacks on or praise for that group themselves.. it's a major reason they want to belong in the first place, since it can provide immense positive feelings with little effort, and can provide them more often than a single person's efforts alone would.
</p><p>
This personalization usually means whomever is involved can no longer be effectively reasoned with where the group, it's attributes, or goals are concerned.  This is because either consciously or subconsciously that person feels threatened by any suggestion that the group is "wrong" or incorrect, or even worse that the perceived group doesn't exist.
</p><p>
So, in this case the submitter is assuming that the rest of the folks here on Slashdot are A) Aware of the "us and them" groups, B) Part of the "us" group, and C) Also concerned about this "issue" which has been brought to light (probably only partly for advocacy reasons... another large burst of good emotional feelings comes from actively representing the group to which one belongs, and warning of impending doom is a good way to represent.  See also the football fans that paint themselves and wear their team's colors.
</p><p>
The truth in this case is that there are many more parties involved than just two, and that the assumed conflict doesn't exist.  If one looks back to the origins of the free software movement, there were no restrictions placed on commercial use of the GPL software (or its predecessors).  In fact, the GPL allows commercial use of licensed software without fee or restriction except for the provision to distribute source code.
</p><p>
The hard thing for a lot of people who are concerned about this "conflict" to wrap their head around is that there's no conflict, and in fact commercial software stacked on top of open source is a very good thing for any open source platform... it means everyone wins.  People can make money off of their work, other people can get commercially supported apps they need, and no one is held hostage to a closed source operating system or distribution method.
</p><p>
Imagine what the iPhone would be like if Apple didn't control the OS, and wasn't able to control the software written for the device... there'd be far fewer $9 apps that are crap since someone would immediately write something better, and having no one to say "no" would get it published.
</p><p>
Erik</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a fine illustration of the mindset of a lot of Linux and open source " fans " .
There 's a self identification happening here with the " open source community " for a number of reasons , and it 's a common occurrence among a lot of open source advocates .
What usually happens is that fans end up with a binary view of the software production system... specifically the idea that there exists an " us and them " conflict between open source and commercial software , and between the authors of same .
It 's kind of the same impulse that makes people identify with a sports team based in their city or state as " their " team , or advocating their own brand of computer for emotional rather than rational reasons .
Humans want to belong to groups , they get a good feeling from it .
So even in cases where clear " us and them " groups do n't exist , they perceive them , since without a group they have nowhere to belong .
There are a lot of reasons for this both biological and social .
The phenomenon seems to be a human universal , though .
To make things more complicated , once a person identifies his or herself with a group , then they personalize attacks on or praise for that group themselves.. it 's a major reason they want to belong in the first place , since it can provide immense positive feelings with little effort , and can provide them more often than a single person 's efforts alone would .
This personalization usually means whomever is involved can no longer be effectively reasoned with where the group , it 's attributes , or goals are concerned .
This is because either consciously or subconsciously that person feels threatened by any suggestion that the group is " wrong " or incorrect , or even worse that the perceived group does n't exist .
So , in this case the submitter is assuming that the rest of the folks here on Slashdot are A ) Aware of the " us and them " groups , B ) Part of the " us " group , and C ) Also concerned about this " issue " which has been brought to light ( probably only partly for advocacy reasons... another large burst of good emotional feelings comes from actively representing the group to which one belongs , and warning of impending doom is a good way to represent .
See also the football fans that paint themselves and wear their team 's colors .
The truth in this case is that there are many more parties involved than just two , and that the assumed conflict does n't exist .
If one looks back to the origins of the free software movement , there were no restrictions placed on commercial use of the GPL software ( or its predecessors ) .
In fact , the GPL allows commercial use of licensed software without fee or restriction except for the provision to distribute source code .
The hard thing for a lot of people who are concerned about this " conflict " to wrap their head around is that there 's no conflict , and in fact commercial software stacked on top of open source is a very good thing for any open source platform... it means everyone wins .
People can make money off of their work , other people can get commercially supported apps they need , and no one is held hostage to a closed source operating system or distribution method .
Imagine what the iPhone would be like if Apple did n't control the OS , and was n't able to control the software written for the device... there 'd be far fewer $ 9 apps that are crap since someone would immediately write something better , and having no one to say " no " would get it published .
Erik</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a fine illustration of the mindset of a lot of Linux and open source "fans".
There's a self identification happening here with the "open source community" for a number of reasons, and it's a common occurrence among a lot of open source advocates.
What usually happens is that fans end up with a binary view of the software production system... specifically the idea that there exists an "us and them" conflict between open source and commercial software, and between the authors of same.
It's kind of the same impulse that makes people identify with a sports team based in their city or state as "their" team, or advocating their own brand of computer for emotional rather than rational reasons.
Humans want to belong to groups, they get a good feeling from it.
So even in cases where clear "us and them" groups don't exist, they perceive them, since without a group they have nowhere to belong.
There are a lot of reasons for this both biological and social.
The phenomenon seems to be a human universal, though.
To make things more complicated, once a person identifies his or herself  with a group, then they personalize attacks on or praise for that group themselves.. it's a major reason they want to belong in the first place, since it can provide immense positive feelings with little effort, and can provide them more often than a single person's efforts alone would.
This personalization usually means whomever is involved can no longer be effectively reasoned with where the group, it's attributes, or goals are concerned.
This is because either consciously or subconsciously that person feels threatened by any suggestion that the group is "wrong" or incorrect, or even worse that the perceived group doesn't exist.
So, in this case the submitter is assuming that the rest of the folks here on Slashdot are A) Aware of the "us and them" groups, B) Part of the "us" group, and C) Also concerned about this "issue" which has been brought to light (probably only partly for advocacy reasons... another large burst of good emotional feelings comes from actively representing the group to which one belongs, and warning of impending doom is a good way to represent.
See also the football fans that paint themselves and wear their team's colors.
The truth in this case is that there are many more parties involved than just two, and that the assumed conflict doesn't exist.
If one looks back to the origins of the free software movement, there were no restrictions placed on commercial use of the GPL software (or its predecessors).
In fact, the GPL allows commercial use of licensed software without fee or restriction except for the provision to distribute source code.
The hard thing for a lot of people who are concerned about this "conflict" to wrap their head around is that there's no conflict, and in fact commercial software stacked on top of open source is a very good thing for any open source platform... it means everyone wins.
People can make money off of their work, other people can get commercially supported apps they need, and no one is held hostage to a closed source operating system or distribution method.
Imagine what the iPhone would be like if Apple didn't control the OS, and wasn't able to control the software written for the device... there'd be far fewer $9 apps that are crap since someone would immediately write something better, and having no one to say "no" would get it published.
Erik</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30515200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30517068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30538526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30515068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30514728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513138
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513176
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30514170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513452
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30515496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513672
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512512
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513620
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512078
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30514156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512244
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30516196
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30514012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30521690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512622
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30518922
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512102
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30516276
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513260
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30514362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30516598
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30514368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511978
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512318
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30517446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30519700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30538914
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30514446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512438
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513580
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30515878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512128
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30514034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513416
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30518934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512066
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30515162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512222
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30517696
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30517014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30553310
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512488
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30515996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_21_142228_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511948
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30516042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_142228.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30514728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30517068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513998
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_142228.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30517446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30538526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512328
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_142228.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512258
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_142228.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513488
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_142228.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511870
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_142228.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512468
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_142228.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512818
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_142228.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512542
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_142228.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512094
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_142228.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30516276
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512102
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512502
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513260
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513866
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30514368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512622
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30517014
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512576
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512066
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30514170
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513018
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512512
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513048
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512128
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30514362
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512560
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513452
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30514156
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30514034
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_142228.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513076
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_142228.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511866
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30514012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512244
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30518922
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513530
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30515068
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30538914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30515878
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_142228.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512224
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30519700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30515162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30516196
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513412
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30515200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513672
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30553310
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_142228.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30516598
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_142228.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512950
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_142228.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512246
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_142228.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30517054
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_142228.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512438
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511932
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_142228.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512304
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_142228.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512550
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30517696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513176
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512532
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512488
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513646
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30515996
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_142228.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511940
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512078
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30514446
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_142228.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512360
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30516042
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513580
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_142228.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512136
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_142228.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513290
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_142228.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511978
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512448
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513138
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512318
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30521690
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512976
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_142228.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512816
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_142228.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30512134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30515496
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_142228.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30511914
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_21_142228.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30513416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_21_142228.30518934
</commentlist>
</conversation>
