 Gwaeddechol. Gwaeddechol. Gwyddechol. Gweddechol. Gweddechol. Gwyddechol. Fy socially unigol, gadewch i'r half-lart i gyfan, ddim ei'ddo arwyr o'r holl pwg tîm, i alwch ei bod diwylliant gyda'r holl pwg pwg pwg pwg pwg pwy o fwy o. Mae'r pwg pwg 퍼fysgwyr cyd-der enormous. Mae'r holl pwy o'r holl pwy o. oes gallu eu cyfnod â ymddi celf a fe fydd amser i chi'n gwybod ychydig, yn ffr�io i chi'n gwybod ychydig i'u gwybod mwy o gwybod arno gyda'r pwysig. So, fe wnaeth oeddwn ni'n ei ddim o'r mewn y maes arwyng os y pwyng o'r pwyng yn rhan, o'r internet, o'r sof, o'r content, o'r adeg, o'r standards, gallwch yn pwyno arnynnig i chi'n o'r pwyng goreidd. Mae y gallwch yn gyfnod a oedd yn y cyflwyno mewn gwêl bobl oedd o bwysig o'. Y War o'r ystod yw ddiddorg, gynhed�io. Yw'r ystod yw'r ystod yn fawr. Ac wyddwn ni'n dyn nhw'n ddiddorg,Fe allan teithydd ar Arpanet y niden. Rhaid a'u ddiddorg a'u ddod o cyfnodd o'r ddiddorg. Mae'r ddiddorg yn y y cyfnodd yn eitem gyda'i gofynu. Rhaid, eich gynhyrch yn ni'n gwybod ydw i'r rhywbeth a ydych chi'n ddiddorg yw cyffredin, ysgrifel o arddon ychydig ychydig. Ond y gallwn y cwmaint, yn gofynnodd ar y maes y teimlo, rwy'n neud o'r pryddwyddaeth eich heb ac rydyn ni fod yn ychydig. Rwy'n neud o'r pryddwyddaeth eich heb a bryddiol. Mae'n rhaid i'r pryddwyddiol, ydw i'n rhaid i'r pryddwyddu, ond ond mae'r pryddwyddu wedi bod yn ei cynnig o'r pryddwyddu. Felly mae'n cael ei fod yn ei ddweud o'r pryddwyddu a'r pryddwyddu. Ie, mae'n gwybod ei wneud o'r ffordd, ar gyfer o'r penderfyn yw gweld y gweithio'r ffordd. Mae'n olygu o'r ffordd o'r ffordd yn cymdeithasol, ond mae'r idea yn ffordd o'r ffordd yn newid y ffordd yn gweithio'r album. Mae'n gweithio'r album yn ei gweithio yw'r ffordd yn eistedd. Mae'n gweithio'r ffordd o'r podcasio, os yn ychynig o'r radio. Y YouTube os yn ychynig o'r TV o'r skype, os yn ychynig o'r telemiwg. Open Source a Open Standards. But Open Source stunned much more than that. Particularly in the form of Linux, it has led to a completely new economy of companies, Google, Facebook and Twitter. Google has reputed to have over a million servers distributed around the world, all running a version of Linux. Facebook and Twitter also based their entire software stack on free software. The reason for that is because these were companies that started with very little in the way of resources, and so they just went down to their local store, bought a few PCs and then threw Open Source on it. That has created an entire ecosystem. That's a tremendous gift that Open Source has given us. Android, which is much in the news recently, is seeing 600,000 activations a day. It has transformed the smartphone and the mobile market. Again, that's based on Linux and free software with a bit of non-free thrown on top. But at the other end, 91% of the top 500 supercomputers in the world today run on Linux. People tend to assume that Linux, having been written literally in a bedroom, is really about low end stuff. It's not. It's running the fastest, most powerful supercomputers in the world. Windows runs on 1%, five machines. Okay, open content. Sadly, Project Gutenberg's founder, Michael Hart, died very recently. He was a tremendous visionary. In the 1970s, he had the idea of putting digital content on this new internet thing. It was ARPANET again, and just giving it away. This is a very early example of the idea of open content, content that is in the public domain in that particular case, that anyone can do anything with. Wikipedia, another very good example of the amazing scale of this. 19 million articles across all the different languages, which is just unprecedented. If you'd said that people were going to put together an encyclopedia which was hundreds of times bigger than Encyclopedia Britannica, nobody would have believed you, but it's been done. Most people are using it for their homework on a regular basis. Open content also embraces these other media. Flickr, I mentioned, has apparently got over five billion. That was 2010, so it's probably six or seven billion. YouTube, eight years of video content are uploaded every day, so that gives you an idea of the scale of open content. Again, this is unimaginable quantities, and it's the idea of just sharing material that has made that possible. Open data, it goes back a long way again because the Human Genome Project began back in the 1980s and 90s, as a three billion dollar project to sequence the human genome. But what's interesting about it is that it has generated $800 billion of economic output. So the idea of giving away data in a completely open form, after that seemed at the time, has actually generated nearly a trillion dollars' worth of economic activity. And I think we're going to see much more of that. We've heard today about some of the things that are already happening. One interesting project I think is Open Street Map because one of the areas that there's a lot of contention is about geodata, giving that away, but a lot of countries don't want to do that. Open Street Map is rerouting around that by actually just producing it for free. It's still early days, but again, the figures show that if you give stuff away, the US has done, it's realised $750 billion of economic activity from the $19 billion that it's spent, whereas the EU only gained $68 billion in terms of selling and licensing it. So, Open is Trump's closed. Open standards we've heard a lot about today creates level playing field for procurement, Prince Lock-in, and it's absolutely crucial for open source. You cannot use non-open standards in open source because of the intellectual monopolies involved. I'll talk about that in just a minute. So, to focus on the threats that I want to talk about, what I was trying to get across there was that the open internet was all about not needing permission to innovate. You can just invent something and just do it and if it meets the need, it takes off. The key threat here I think is loss of net neutrality. Net neutrality is about the packets of data being sent across the network in a completely blind fashion. In other words, you don't know and don't care what those packets do because if you do, then you can start to discriminate. And if you discriminate, then you have the power to stop new entrants coming into the market. And that's not what has been the case so far. The open internet is about letting anyone do anything with the packets. So, the battles that we're currently seeing about net neutrality are really about the open internet and about the power to innovate. So, I think the key action there is that around the world and particularly in Europe, we do need to see some legal mandate for equality of internet packets unless requested by the end user. Because there's a difference between the end user saying, I want my game stream of IP packets to be prioritised or my VoIP packets to be prioritised and for a company, say a large media company headed by sort of old people, who then pay large sums of money to ISPs to get priority for their particular packets. That's different. Okay, open source. The obvious key feature here is the ability to reuse and build on existing code. And as we've heard again and again and again, the key threat here is software patents. One day, software patents are going to kill open source unless we do something about it because they are fundamentally incompatible. Now, in Europe, we have this ridiculous situation that we have the European Patent Convention, Article 52, as we heard earlier today, saying that software is not patentable as such. Now, the as such two words has allowed very clever, very highly paid lawyers to basically blast that treaty out of the water. And if we're serious about openness, we've got to get those two words out and make sure that there is no way of patenting software as such, or using technical effects, or using computer implemented inventions. You've just got to be clear about it because as soon as you allow a loophole, I guarantee that open source one day will be hit very badly by this. Open content. Okay, again, sharing. The problem we've got at the moment is we have some insane laws going through. You've got website blocking being talked about. I mean, come on. We're talking about closing down the internet. You've got criminalisation for the sharing of content. You've got things like ACTA, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, which is introducing supranational laws on top of things. You've got things like ADOPI, the British Digital Economy Act, which is ripping up hundreds of years of tradition in terms of presumption of innocence. I mean, what's going on here, people? This is insane, okay? And this is really all about openness. It's all about old business models based on closed content fighting against openness. We've got to decide what we want. Do you want freedom or do you want to have, you know, Disney? Open data. Obvious choice, really. Open data, right? We've been hearing again about some of the problems of open data, but there's a particular issue in Europe which I'd like to emphasise because it's been rather swept under the carpet. In Europe, we have this insane database sui generis, right, which allows you to create a kind of copyright for databases. Now, I'll give you an example of why that's a problem. Tim Hubbard, who's one of the world's leading genomic scientists, says that this right of a publisher to claim this kind of, you know, pseudo-copyright on data stops him aggregating data from publicly funded papers in scientific journals so that he can then do more science. So this is actually blocking the open data aggregation and reuse. So, you know, what we need to do is to get rid of this. How many should we do that? We've actually got evidence to say why we do it. The European Commission actually did a study in 1995 comparing the production of databases before this is bought in and afterwards. And guess what? When they brought in the legislation, the number of databases produced in Europe went down. This is a classic monopoly. When you introduce monopolies, people do less. And that's what happened. So why have we got this ridiculous right which has reduced the number of databases and is absolutely unjustified economically? We've got an example of where we have the evidence, but we're not acting on it. Okay, open standards. We've just said it creates a level playing field. Okay, the key threat here. We've heard the words open standard banded around in this room. Well, I don't think we're talking about the same open standards because there's this fran, fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory open standards which is fundamentally incompatible with openness. It's incompatible with open source. So when people say open standards, oh, by the way, fran, you're not talking open standards, I'm sorry. But the way for true open standards and a true level playing field is to have royalty-free, restriction-free. And one of the worst examples of this, I'm afraid, is in Europe when the European Interoperability Framework 1.0 went from royalty-free to fran. That's EIS 2.0 is an absolute disgrace because it's actually gone backwards. So if that message could be communicated to the right people in the European Union, I'd be grateful. All right, so to conclude, my little rant, openness and sharing really have ancient roots. The English concept of the Commons and similar other cultures goes back thousands of years. But openness 2.0 that I've been talking about is very new. 1970s project Gutenberg, 1980s with GNU. And so despite, or even because of this huge success that you've all been talking about today, I think it's really under attack, under attack from the forces that see openness as a threat. And it's easier to close something down than it is to open it. So I really close by saying that I think openness is an open question. It's not a foregone conclusion that all the wonderful things you've been talking about are going to continue. We have to fight for this and indeed we have to roll back some of the attacks. So I would urge you to consider this in the context of all the wonderful openness that we've been hearing about. Thank you very much.