 Our next speaker is a lawyer, he has his own lawyer office and he is working with free software. Please welcome Mika Ehrich-Demann. Hi, thank you for the introduction. I'm really happy to be here on stage for the second year in a row, talking about free software. When talking about digital sovereignty, my stance is that it is only possible with free software. Let me introduce myself. I'm a law professional, I studied law at the University of Cologne with two state exams as mandated by the German law. I worked as a lawyer for quite some time, also as a freelancer. As a law professional, I have an interest in free software and this is why I'm a member of the legal network of the free software Friends Europe. As a freelancer, I also joined the open office project and together with friends, I also founded an association, which I'm also the chairman of as I'm a law expert. It's a now an overview of my talk. First, I'm going to talk about what is sovereignty because we have to have a closer look at the concept. Then I'm going to talk about free licenses and the third question I want to look at is why is free software needed for digital sovereignty? Digital sovereignty has become a buzzword, one has to say. Everyone's postulating it, every company, every community, every country, every association. The umbrella organizations are postulating it, so there's not a day where digital sovereignty isn't postulated. I think digital is a clear term at least here with our audience, but what does sovereignty mean? And this is what I want to talk about now. If you look at the definition an old man like me would do that in the Duden. And in this dictionary it says sovereignty is the highest order of power. Okay, then the second definition is the independence of a state from the influence of other states and the third sovereignty being secure and able to navigate the world on your own. This would be a dream in terms of software. Now synonyms are also listed in the Duden. But Torchdeny is listed as a synonym. Now there's a city called Homingberg which wanted to be digitally sovereign and it resulted in half of the city being actually had a half of the city's IT department being actually sovereign, creating their own programs. And employees of the city did programming courses and now are writing their own programs. It doesn't really work like that. It would be very ambitious even for Germany. And also for Europe it would be a real challenge. Autonomy means that you can define on yourself on your own terms. Then sovereignty, then maturity is also listed as a synonym. So that also goes into the concept of as being superior. It means that you have experience and skills in what you're doing. Then self-reliance and self-government, self-management and supremacy. What does that mean? Am I superior to other people or am I superior to the cause? Independence and a position of power. Well, this is a word you shouldn't maybe you shouldn't use in this context. So when talking about sovereignty you encounter Karl Schmidt sooner or later. This is a man who had some interesting views to put it mildly. And he was also kind of keen of the national socialist regime. And he said sovereign is the person who decides or who is in power in exceptional situations. And you can say that about politicians, about leaders, about companies who run certain platforms and who now say that digital sovereignty for them means that they decide on their own what people can communicate on their platforms, who they communicate with. And this goes beyond and what is communicated beyond the borders of the state they reside in. This has nothing to do with free software, but this is a popular stance. And that is also because politicians in a democratic liberals system we all remember that there's a politician who now has a higher position in the EU and who thought that certain contents should only be available at night in Germany. That was supposedly to protect children. And maybe something she didn't understand is if it's night in Germany, it's they somewhere else. That's because of the rotation of the earth. Maybe someone should tell her that. This sovereignty is also called the monopoly of the last decision or the final decision. So if a state wants digital sovereignty, they are basically saying that they want to be in control of everything. That's frankly, in my opinion, it doesn't go well with my understanding of democracy and free society. You could also say that those are people who would like to put up walls and fences on the Internet and make their own walled gardens that they cultivate, if you want to say it positively. So they want to decide what content and opinions, pictures can be shared on their networks. So for example, they want to dictate that only men can show their nipples on the Internet and not women. And of course, they're saying that they do this for the benefit of the users and for protection of our children and so on. So it's kind of a condescending sovereignty. So this is also not the sovereignty that I define in terms of free software. So you see that the concept of sovereignty is diverse and there's different usages of the concept. So you always have to question what is the position of the person who uses that term and what is their interest in using it. Digital sovereignty doesn't have a common definition and it's also not differentiated in terms of its content. So a lot of people are using the term for their own benefit and trying to fill it with content. You could use the terms in the context of being able to make your own decision and be sovereign on the web. This is more of an engineering definition. It's not suited for politicians. If you put independence in absolute term, this doesn't exist in the analogue world either. So of course, it also doesn't exist in the digital world. Now, trying to define this, you can say digital sovereignty is the sum of all abilities and options of individuals and institutions which allow them to take on their roles in the digital realm in an independent, self-determined and safe way. That sounds good, but to make it viable, there is another question. Digital sovereignty has certain prerequisites that also arise from this definition. You need competencies, skills of, for example, employees. You have to have a choice. If I don't have a choice, I'm not sovereign because then I have no other option than to take what is offered to me. And security or IT security is a big issue here at the CCC. And this is a good thing. Now let's get to free software. So sovereignty, as we've elaborated, you always have to question who is saying it and why are they saying it. Now, free software, software is defined as free if it has a license that has certain prerequisites or that for certain requirements. And this determines where a program is free software or if it has freedom as a quality in terms of the law. So software with freedom built into it. There are four basic freedoms that are called use, study, share and improve. So this means that A, you can use the program as you wish for any purpose. Second, you are free to study how the program works and to change it so it does your computing as you wish. Also, you're able to share copies to help others. And you're allowed to distribute copies of your modified versions to others. And to do so, you need the source code. And by doing this, you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. And the conclusion is a program is free software when users have all of these freedoms. Now what is the benefit for the user and what is the benefit of digital sovereignty to the user? Primarily, a program that is free software can be used for any cause and for any duration. So there's no limits in content or in the usage period. So if the license elapses, it's not free software. So you can use it anytime, anywhere and for any purpose. So of course, you're able to use free software to write blackmail letters or for reasons that others might consider immoral. And you can also use it on as many computers and with as many processors as you want. That is also a very practical freedom because the times where people had one computer that was not connected to the internet are long over. We're living in times in a digital and networked times. And also the freedom to make copies and to distribute them is very interesting because it saved you license management efforts. I remember visiting an event where license auditing was mentioned and people were angry that programs or companies took the right to look into the source code or the license of a software to see whether it's really available without limits. Now, this freedom also allows people to practice their skills, which they may be able to use professionally. So free software also allows employees, for example, to gain competencies, gain new skills. Schools, companies and authorities can recommend installing free software to teachers or employees without limits. This allows a sovereign use. And by sovereign, I mean informed and independent. So users can use the software in this definition of sovereign. And if that freedom didn't exist, people would be at the mercy of the distributor of the software. And proprietary software has the disadvantage that you always have to tell the provider, please give me this and that feature. And if they say, no, we won't do that or we will only do that if you pay us money, that's a restriction of the sovereignty of the user of the software. So free software can always be adjusted to your individual or your company's needs. Also free software doesn't have a vendor lock in. This means that I can choose my own partners for development, installation, support, changes, training, etc. Usually you have many companies to choose and pick from, also smaller, medium-sized enterprises that you can work with locally. That you can work with locally. Also you have the security of planning because the license doesn't have a limit. So I don't have to fear raised license fees or fees for an update or upgrade, which gives me the ability to plan. But also if the provider of the software doesn't provide any updates anymore or goes bankrupt even, I still can use the software. I can develop it further on my own and also join other users in developing it further. Or you're looking for someone else who can take on the development because that's possible with free software. This is not possible with proprietary software. It's the same time. Do we have a freedom simply due to diversity? Because there are forks. I can choose which forks. Do I take Libre Office? Do I take Open Office? They're different softwares for the same purpose or even is different versions of the same software. So they're different forks and developments and freedom gives rise to creativity and therefore we have a choice among several options. And another benefit is that we don't have to get a special license just to try the software. We can just install it and use it. So there are no investments into the licenses. But unfortunately there's not diversity for every use case. Especially with software that is highly specific for a certain area of the economy. Different area of the industry. There might not be that many programs to choose from. For example it's a lot harder to get different software as a lawyer and also for architects. It might not be the easiest way to find software. And security is another important topic especially in context with digital sovereignty. So with proprietary software it is impossible for the user to determine if the software has the required quality and security of the software that they are using. But if you have access to the source code then you don't have that problem. You can investigate. Of course you also have to take into account that you might not that the compilation units of the compile program is actually not derived from the source code that you have access to. This is something you have to take into account. And another problem is in this context is security because you're losing safety and security because it's not possible that the software is verified by third parties. And fortunately we have transparency with free software. And this is often a documentation of the algorithms and the functionality and the implementation of the software is much more transparent compared to proprietary software. But in but of course there are also examples in practice where not enough investigations have been made and that's why there are now financial support programs to sponsor open source maintainers to find security holds and to find security issues in open source software. I will talk about that a bit later. When we talk about how to improve the situation what can we what can we ask for instead of digital sovereignty. So the free software we have the digital source code we can study it. And if there are many reviewers of the source code then security issues are typically quickly discovered and fixed in a short time. So this is the rule but unfortunately there are also exceptions. And it's also important to build software based on established and well documented building blocks. And another aspect is that free software is interoperable by principle. And that means that there is nothing that forces the users to pick a one-size-fits-all solution. Because if I open if I create a document with LibreOffice then I can also open it with Apache Open Office. There's no question about that. And anyone can implement this standard and I can use any of the software that implemented standard to work with the files. If we look at the macroeconomic dynamics so for instance if we look at Germany or the European Union then there are actually many good opportunities with open source. We have lower costs through cooperation. It also improves competition in the market. And everyone is on the same level in terms of software availability. And therefore everyone has the same opportunities. And therefore free software is a healthy thing for the macroeconomics. At the same time there is a strengthening of digital competencies because having the same opportunities in life is not dependent on the income of the parents because everyone can install the software students pupils everyone. And because the source code is open you can study the source code based on practical examples and learn things about software development. For example one could learn about what text markup is in text or how texts are rendered because this is always the same principle. So I have to declare okay what is the purpose of this text fragment is it a headline is it a paragraph what is it. So basically yeah so it enables learning by doing if people have access to the code and the software because people can also learn to change the software themselves and see what the effects are. And if you have a good peer group then you also can get code reviews of the changes you made. In any case this strengthens the digital competencies of the people and this is something you don't have with proprietary software. And now I'm going into future perspectives. The idea is we should maybe not aim for digital sovereignty we should not demand it but maybe digitally digital solidarity and I would like to point to the talk by Thomas Fricke who gave the talk in the sea base where he talked about that free software is not only about taking but but it's also an attitude it's an attitude that assumes well if you consider the first freedom the freedom to study the source code that if you have knowledge then this gives you freedom and if you have access to the knowledge and the technology then you can create more things with it and something similar you can read in the hacker ethics and of course it also says what you should do with the software and not what you should not do with the software. So the term of digital solidarity is a very individualistic term and so sorry digital sovereignty is a very individualistic term and so if people look at individual states individual organizations but yeah what the creators of free software want is that other people can profit and benefit from the software that they write to quote one does not own a thing in the typical sense or in the right sense if you can still share it without actually losing any benefit yourself and this ethical attitude has led to the free free software from establishing themselves because this sharing with each other is very fundamental and I'm not a member myself in these organizations but I'm part so but I also observe these tendencies in the ccc that sharing very deliberately sharing is very common in the ccc and elsewhere and it's very reciprocal that people share but one learns from each one learns from each other and that the over 60 years old lawyer can also learn things from a 16 year old student so there's a level playing field and equal opportunities and this is the approach that we should all demand for the digital realm where the community is taking into account and I think in order to attain that goal free software is needed as much as the many perspectives that members of ccc and other organizations that promote free software and if companies want to be part of this community it's really easy to do that basically if you're not being too arrogant at least this is my experience in my hackerspace I was welcomed very warmly the community is very interested in the experiences of others and exchanging experiences I've never left a hackerspace without having learned something but you have to get into this mindset and that also means that you may have to forfeit your own developments or your own money for the benefit of the community and share with others and the presentation I mentioned mentioned many different possibilities and opportunities there and the demand to put 10 million euros a year into free software may sound like a lot but it's only right it's only just and it would have so many benefits so you have to be ready or willing to cooperate to not be egressive and selfish so for example of the open software community develops a software to raise dog taxes you have to give up the thinking that you don't want your neighbors to profit from this program you just built this attitude doesn't hold so thank you very much do you have any questions yes yes there are questions but first thank you for your presentation the audience can still send in questions on twitter masterdan and wherever you want the first question is wouldn't vegetables sovereignty also give freedom of choice between different open source solutions yes so the problem is vendor lock ins and if if I have the choice between two products but in practice once I've chosen one of them and after five years I realize the other one's actually better it's very difficult to change to the other product and in principle yes but in practice rather difficult then we got a comment licenses are still useful to make sure certain limits are being kept to relatively simple depends on what we mean what what so compliance problems occur only once we publish things and then I have to take care of take take care of making sure that I only use software that where the licenses are compatible compatible only when I publish a software then I have compliance problems between the lines and these are actually rather big and therefore I suggest that developers should focus on their software not on the licenses so much and all in our society where recklessness and respect a lack of respect is so commonplace how do you want to ensure that people are ready to be solitary to be solidarious digitally how we need a conscious we need to be aware that we cannot continue with our current societal and economic structures the way they are right now there is a lot of social inequality and this leads to splitting of societies this leads to wars or to other conflicts and because of that even hardcore capitalists have realized that we need to find a solution I still hope that sensibilities will find a way reason next question as far as I know in schools and universities open source and how to be part of them is not really taught what do you think about that I'm not a bureaucrat yes there are approaches yes but the problem is it depends on the people if they want to do it if they want to get involved and if they are at the right position to do these things and but in our political system it is unfortunately yes it's it's difficult in our political system because things can also change so there are people who invest a lot of time in promoting free software in schools and because this teacher was so so good that they were moved to a different school but then the old school moved back to proprietor software follow-up question how is access to free software regulated for example how can students get access to free software licenses or even have the hardware to be able to use that software yeah to hardware free software also runs on older systems and yeah free software can have less demand for the hardware of course it depends on what you want to do with the hardware um if you want to learn a programming language then you can use a pensium one machine but as i said we all have very powerful computers today if i look at this i'm an old man i have worked i have started with an apple 2 clone that had a lot less power okay so it looks like there are no other questions so i would like to conclude the talk thank you very much for the talk thank you for the invitation and i hope that everyone on stream has been able to enjoy the talk as much as i did