 All right, thanks everybody for coming to the legal and policy dev room We look at all the hardcore fans that are stayed in the audience because like we filled up. Yeah, thank you for being here Like the van stock was the only thing we were full for today, but I actually had to flip the sign To the full setting But we're not full now. I think that's obvious But we are so thankful for those of you that stayed just to hear us at the final session So I think we should we did a lot of new things that were one major new thing this year And so if it's okay by everybody, I think we should start out with feedback on that so debates Did you like them? Did you know let's start with let's start wait. Let's start with hands So raise your hand if you really liked them It's nuts like three quarter well, it would be easier to do this raise your hand if you really hated them So two people really hated them you didn't even have to do Sure, whether you like raise or not sure if you're like them or not Okay, then then if you're not for people are not sure it's about a quarter And then raise your hand if you really liked some but you really disliked others Okay, okay, so so I think in full disclosure we this was a real experiment, so we didn't know exactly how to organize them I think we learned a lot And we can see what works. I spent the entire day yesterday studying debate theory so so I think with the With the assertion that the vast majority of the people in the room really liked them a lot or Really liked some of them Maybe we could go to the negative and have people give constructive feedback on what they would do sure Yeah, yeah, that sounds great, then I don't have to run around with the okay I see a reason and I have something that a Comment that was made on social media that I can read as well. That was in the negative, so I Like the format, but there were possibly too many of them So it's sort of got a little repetitive because the format was the same again and again and again So yeah, I wouldn't run as many again, but I definitely do them again I feel like this sort of Scratch an itch for a lot of people because a lot of people want to debate after a talk often And so this kind of solved that in a part, but I think yeah, probably went a bit too much in the other eye erection So a mix of a few debates and a few talks and and kind of on different subjects that will be great But I love the concept of some debate Happening here and not like in the hallway Okay, you here then Kate so I think the debates were very entertaining, but there was I think there's kind of a problem that Since the folks who participated are more on one side of the debate actually Then the when when there's a need to represent the other side it sort of becomes a caricature So it would be maybe useful to have actual proponents of the other side participate Although it's kind of also a problem to sort of invite them to the lion's den to be like Yeah, we really appreciate that to be very frank about it There was a tremendous amount of effort done primarily by Tom I actually want to take a moment to ask will somebody else a mic run for us for this session So Tom can be up here with us. Okay But just to give me a second Kate I'll finish that other point So so yeah, we we spent a tremendous amount of effort emailing people begging them to be in the bates begging them to be on various Sides we reached out to people who are on various sides, and we had a hard time filling some of them on certain sides Just a quick question raise your hand if you didn't participate in a debate, but you totally would in the future So like two four six seven eight, okay nine Yeah, I just wanted to echo the prior point It would have been better if there was something more sincerely debating each side as opposed to People putting on a persona and then putting these big disclaimers up We're probably learned more. I want to read the negative feedback that we got on social media Just because I think it dovetails with it which is just dislike new debate format of illegal in policy room at FOSDM Informative sessions With respect to less sensational things going on in legal and policy and FOS replaced with rehashed conversations We've been having for months for entertainment. Glad my legal team isn't here would waste their time So I happen I don't agree with that comment, but I do think that that I Felt that there was too much, you know, this was good entertainment but I what I originally loved about this dev room was the more serious discussion of legal and policy issues and This was as someone said, you know, it kind of at times verged on caricature and I see how it's sort of fun But to me I mean, I'll just like state some some other Problems I had I thought that I think the format is somewhat exclusionary because I think only certain types of personalities are going to be likely to enjoy Doing this kind of thing and be good at it And so I think it's kind of much more exclusionary than than general presentations are which are exclusionary enough already and I think that's something that should be born in mind And one of the reasons we did this is because we looked at the last few years of the of the dev room talks and we get the we get Rehashed recycled submissions of the same thing every single year from the usual suspects And we do a lot of effort to get the CFP to new places and the CFP has like way too much text because I wrote it Like paragraphs saying like we want people who haven't talked about policy before please submit etc Etc, but we haven't been getting that the last few years And so we didn't want to just run the usual suspects giving all the same talks for yet another year And that's why we did it this way That's true, but I wrote the pie. I did not write that alone, but I wrote the I wrote the the two verbose stuff That's what I did one point. I think a lot of the participants were what we would call usual suspects That's one of the problems. So I'm glad that there are some people who are willing to Make any debates debates in you know future years So if we get you know additional people to do it who haven't spoken in the dev room before I think that'd be great But I think that there were a lot of I mean speakers that we really like but but there as Bradley would say usual suspects Yeah, I mean I think that it's being a first-year proposition that might happen, but go ahead Pam Yeah, so I was going to say and I'm saying this with my open-source initiative board member had on that as we shared privately I'll say publicly that it was very Difficult it was very difficult for the OSI to sort of see our CR our mission sort of up for vote first off with A very click-baity title that was negative towards us and then and then as first conveyed to us that there was going to be sort Of a vote on whether or not the open-source definition is appropriate or not Which I just can't tell you how much angst that that created at the OSI that that so it's maybe less click bait I appreciate that you didn't ask those questions I appreciate very much that it and I didn't like the questions you did ask was did you learn something to do? I think those were appropriate, but less click-baity titles or sort of Hanging people out to dry less on the titles would we would have appreciated that yeah So what we had this year was like a mix of some of we could we did the general call Like CFP for folks that would want to submit the debates and then we also created some of them And I think I think we would have a heavier hand in In constructing those in the future and it for many reasons including that So just actually building on Kate's comment from before that it's maybe preferable to have People who are actually taking not sorry not just taking an opinion for the sake of having a debate But actually hold that opinion as well I think the advantage of having it this way and actually putting or forcing people to take a specific Position makes the debate less heated Because sometimes it feels like if you have someone on the on the panel who's actually holding an very controversial opinion They will get attacked and it will really go to go into that and you you lose focus of the topic as such So yes, I understand this is kind of a you know it turns into a caricature Maybe but it also has the advantage of allowing a debate about it What if the topics were more subtle? Yes, I would have preferred that as well and for some of them. I think I would have preferred them to be clearer On what you know what you're actually talking about and what the debate is going to be about but yeah They know that's not that's not a format issue. That's more of a like a phrasing issue Yeah, we actually originally Wanted a structure going even further in a very traditional way that they do debates where you don't know what side you have to take It's a coin flip Which is how debate tournaments usually run you're given a policy issue and you're told with a policy issue to head But not which side you have to take and then the coin is flipped at the beginning and that's how you end up on either side Basically, we couldn't get anybody to agree to that It was If people could pass the mic around and Tom you could come up because I feel like so you can keep the mic where it is and We'll pass it around but Tom. You're not participating in So this kind of relates to what Maria was saying and probably also outs me as being My first time in the legal dev room, but what I was thinking about was there seems to be Too much of an assumption of a base level of knowledge on in two different ways one is I had no idea What people were debating about at times because the debate topic wasn't clearly well defined and that I would click on the Description and the page and I'm like this doesn't sound right It sounds like people were actually talking about two different things But something else is that the people in the audience I got this impression earlier when somebody said, you know What are the four freedoms for example, and I'm lucky that I know some of this stuff But being somebody who has been out of the open-source movement for a long time and coming back You know, I'm like, oh, I actually haven't thought about a lot of this stuff a long time And all this really assumes a very high level of knowledge and it prevents a lot of audience members I think I'm gonna speak for a lot of other people and I'm assuming It prevents us from being able to engage really Because I have no idea what you're talking about sometimes. I think it's a really fair criticism we have kind of Maybe enjoyed a lot of success in the dev room and by having a lot of legal geeks and policy people involved that You know really go deep on this but what we missed I think and very much to your point is that it's all we kind of Make out we have especially today I can tell from not just your question, but many questions that we're we have made a whole bunch of assumptions about a Lot of things not just How copyright law in particular works, but also some of the The decisions that have been happening that are influential and kind of how it will affect us and some of us you know think about this a lot and and Some of us don't but in and I think that that's it's sort of like having an open-source project That's newbie friendly, you know, or we have starter bugs and we have a way of getting involved We need to have a better on ramps to to this and not just assume that everything is easy Another thing that that that I've noticed happening and I really it really didn't make I'm clear to me until today Or maybe maybe yesterday when I was talking to some people We in this dev room are kind of a victim of our own success in certain types of ways We were the first historically we were the first dev room to not be about software development, which we're very proud of This was you know Tom's idea basically was like hey we could have a dev room about this stuff And it's never been done before that was we're excited and now there are more than just us We're not the only dev room now One of the reasons we always give up ours We don't do try to do two days anymore is because community dev room has a lot of the talks now that we would usually have to do here Because they weren't welcome in any other dev room And I got I get the impression and actually I've heard this from speak from speakers and potential speakers that there's like a Career need to speak in this dev room like people need to speak in this dev room for their own career development I mean I was surprised by this and a little bit flat I think I'm probably all flattered as organizers that that's that it's so important to be in this dev room speaking But on the other hand it kind of changes the nature to a certain extent but I Don't know if that's really true. I know that definitely we know of a person who believes that to be the case I don't think it's true. I don't I think I think you can have you can have a very successful career without ever speaking in this Yeah, so from the very beginning we we conceived of this dev room as being an advanced one And that was because you know not eight nine years ago. There were conferences Free software open-source software conferences that had legal presentations and they tended to be very kind of introductory and we thought well There's there's already conferences like commercially kind of conferences around open source and free software not really free software open source That are doing very introductory level legal stuff Why don't we be the one that talks about things at a more advanced level and we're not the only one now That does that although like we may be the the only one that's kind of really open to the public which is something One challenge I faced with some of the talk with some of the debates was Remembering what role people were supposed to have because I knew a few of them and you'd ask them to play a different role to normal I don't know whether we could have had hats or personas up or color coding to help us And maybe also them remember which position they were trying to take in that debate. I Thought about you know creating a web app or something that would show you where you were in the process and You know what position people were taking and you know the dog ate my homework More questions. Thank you first. It's really cool to see us experimenting with the Dev Room. I think this is my Fourth or fifth time here and this was definitely way different than the experience. I've had other times so I like that we're trying to iterate and improve and Give new voices and give other people a chance to experiment with these positions I Think first I like it. I think we could do a little bit less of it That would be like my first one would be like have a few more traditional talks mixed with it, but you know putting my Advocacy hat on We're in the midst of like a very fud-ridden cycle right now and there's a lot of misinformation going around and I actually felt more confused about the issues by the end of it because it was I Don't know and I'm like I I would consider myself a sophisticated, you know person who studies these things and it was There were moments when I forgot like whether or not the speaker was you know, there was a lot of context switching So maybe like sticking to the guns a little more would be helpful And it would be I it's hard for me to imagine like a brand-new person to the dev room But again like this is an advanced dev room in the assumption So I am thankful that we do it I think it would be cool to do a more of a balance of traditional in the mix and have the roles better delegated to And just you know, I don't want to be the guy that says we shouldn't have fun in here Like it was cool to say everybody laughing We need to laugh and we need to have some joy in the dark times too So thank you for bright bringing a little bit of levity to these times too I also want to we can continue to talk about the debates But I also want to just make a shout-out to our two collaboration sessions We I mean I had the idea that you know because there are a lot of really smart people in this room That we could brainstorm ways of addressing some some issues and I'm really glad that a tello and Nate came to talk about that. I apologize that you know The timing is short 25 minutes is really short to to address these things and I really applaud them for introducing these issues and you know and And Nate proactively, you know setting up a link for people to continue the discussion afterwards. So Just a Question on that Do people think that the idea of doing a collaboration session was a good idea? Okay, let me ask a different question Well Yeah, they were just the idea was for them to be more discussion sessions to you know Put it put it forth a problem statement of something that was happening in our community and maybe you know really just have an interactive session About how to address it And if you I you know, I guess I you know instead of asking a question I'll just maybe pass the microphone and have people share their thoughts about that What that we could do differently what you like what you didn't like that sort of thing So Kevin you can say whatever it was that you were gonna say I just want to make a last comment on the debate topic This is mostly for Bradley because he just said he did all this research When these kinds of debates are held, what is the expectation for the audience knowledge level? That might be an issue here is if people didn't already have the background knowledge of the topic that was being discussed Then you just jumped right into the debate. Maybe you need two minutes From an introduction to just say this is a current topic of discussion Here are some situations that are gonna be dated or something like that So I think there might be something on the mic because it sounds like you're not miced So I just wanted to make sure I heard the question I'm gonna repeat it just in case so the question was like what like how does this normally handled in other places that have debates? The thing is is the base structure we were using is used for debate tournaments Where to be quite frank about it. It looks like for my research again I just did a crash course like on this myself I'm not an expert at all John Sullivan who I don't think is in the room Actually did both high school and college in a graduate level. He did judging at these debate tournament So he knows a lot about it, but I was talking to him about it at lunch as well And it was they the policy position is all almost moot, right? You just you're graded and you're judged on how well you construct your argument And that's who wins is not necessarily who Right-side and so and so I don't know if that format is right for us because we're not trying to do that But that's the format that is typically used for formal debates What if instead what we do neck if we do it again, and there are a lot of ifs contained in that But if we do it again, what if we have a presentation on a certain topic and follow with a debate related to that Presentation raise your hand if you think that would be a good idea. Okay? So Tournaments the members of the audience are not going to have strongly held personal opinions about the thing being debated in this room almost everyone will so So on the co-lab sessions I think that Any of the anything that we bring up that is going to be meaningfully advanced within Within 25 or 40 or 50 minutes is going to be too simple for this group And anything and anything else is not going to be meaningfully advanced within that time time frame I think that the co-lab sessions would be better used in Better used in in other ways Okay, sure Karen were you thinking like a fishbowl type format? when you were asking well You're getting close to it not necessarily fishbowl directly, but more of sort of an unconference thing so Yeah, so I mean I guess that that's one idea the other idea going going van at what you were saying is I mean honestly it you remember the the open-source think tanks where we would go and You could spend a couple hours break up into groups work on some problems And then everybody comes back and presents stuff that would be another Format which is a huge deviation from anything we've ever done here But which people might be interested in if we have problem statements that are of the right magnitude I Think Jim you're kind of agreeing with van that it needs more time Raise your hand if you have burning feedback on today that you absolutely really want to give us because I also Want to give us a second if anyone wants us to address any topics of the day which this has traditionally Been the purpose of the panel and I'm cognizant that some people may have stayed for that I don't know but We want to hear important feedback If folks feel like there are points that haven't been shared, but we're also very happy to get feedback by email Or we're in more public Places to with whatever you feel comfortable with so we have so we have 20 minutes left and I turned to Richard Fontana because I think he's a good person to decide what things we might talk about for the remaining 20 minutes of this panel. Oh, I don't know why you think that I mean There's so much that we could talk about so many so many exciting issues will not Yeah, we can ask questions Pam Chastick I've no exercise today. This is great It's way too much trouble to move as as for highly experienced People people involved in open source for many many many years I'm curious what your perspective is on two things in particular the ethical the ethical licenses and commercial open source and whether You see this as something that is very different and groundbreaking or whether this is same old same old. We've been here before. Oh I guess I can start So it's not new Neither thing is new. We've had Ethical licenses that are sort of aimed at kind of ethical or social policy problems that kind of are That look a little bit like free software like what we've thought of as free software open source licenses Those of the debates over those have happened at various times in the past. I think the what's different now to me is It just feels like a louder kind of thing like there's more and I think it's less marginal So so it's not less marginalized. So it's it's being treated seriously by people who I wouldn't see as being on the fringes But rather are kind of like very much within the the the central part of what I think of as the kind of Foss Community and as for the the commercial open source I mean that doesn't seem new either what what I what kind of annoys me and I think I actually got this maybe originally from from From Josh something that I heard Josh say once is that that The people who are advocating for what's called what I think you mean by commercial open source are kind of trying to piggyback on the the ethical source people, you know, it's sort of trying to to Appropriate their You know their political viewpoint for basically making a kind of business argument or a business model kind of argument So that's very disturbing Well, I'm not a lawyer and I'm not your lawyer and this is not legal advice But I don't think a license is the right place to try and promote ethics. I think that it's a license sufferer license needs to be As simple as possible and no simpler really I think that what makes open source great is the ability for us to collaborate without having to ask permission and and Well, many of these ethical aims are completely laudable. I think that The potential for proliferation of ethical licenses will only cause problems for us and that was one thing that I learned are Really stood out in my mind from the debates today is that we could have a variety of ethical licenses and Then there will all be incompatible with each other and our compatibility will be excruciatingly painful So I don't think that that I don't think that that works I know I don't think it's the right way to do it Um, and I'm going to ask Pam to clarify. What did you mean by commercial open source because I don't understand the question The companies that complain about strip line Yeah, okay. Well Yeah, so I I think You know the short their shorthand version of commons clause in particular is that if you sprinkle that in your open source license That's no longer open source um, I think that the idea of Restricting licenses use for Well, I think let's be honest really to discriminate against cloud providers or softwares or service providers is Defeating freedom zero, which is the the freedom to run the program. I I think that it's really not It's not It's a goal. That's not really an open source goal. It's more of a It's more of a business goal And if you really want to have a license like that, that's completely fine And you can have a proprietary license just please don't try to call it open source or try to come to me and Redefine what the word open source should mean Right, I think we need public processes around it I mean, I think this is one of the the the things that I really like about Licenses that have been drafted in a community process. It's one of the things I like actually I really like about the OSI Review license review process is that that's done in a public way with with input. I think that the draft I I think that having more drafting processes that are groups I mean so to from my view on the ethical licensing and I'm leading a discussion on Monday at CopyLeftConf Little plug in case you don't know about it. It's a it's a one-day conference on Monday CopyLeftConf.org and My my my view on it which I'll be more coy about there because I'm more leading a discussion is that I think it reflects our utter failure as a movement to be leaders in like For ethical technology like I think that we identified that there is something special about software freedom that there's something special about the ethics of Technology and we got on board early, right? We were like some of the first people to start talking about it and then you start seeing TV shows like Silicon Valley spoofing companies using our rhetoric and so much of that is that we failed to really draw a Clear line and we failed to lead and there's this idea that while there are all these problems And we have the sense that licensing may be able to take care of some of that And so why can't we use this and embrace it and go to the next level? And I think that we as a software freedom community both the existing Old guard and and everyone new who's expressing an interest now can come together and take the best ideas of some of these These things and start thinking from from scratch and not throwing away Anything that we have before certainly but But you know seeing if any of those ideas are good for any other initiatives that aren't necessarily licensing Yeah, to the first part of your question Pam, which was is this new I agree with Montana Is it is so un-new that it's ridiculously old the first time I saw a Modification of GPL to say not for military use I think was 1996 but it was no later than 1998 of people trying to do that and the first time I saw you know, basically Non-commercial use only source available licenses was when I was an undergraduate in like 92 93 I was very common in academic communities. They would put software out non-commercial use only and hope to get some sort of Contractual funding for the commercial use so those things have been around for a while. I think the difference now Is Really a failure like Karen was saying a failure of leadership and but I have a slightly different way of looking at it. I think the community that understood why clear licensing was important and Definitions of what licenses should do was important Was not very connected with a generation of software developers that kind of came up in the late 2000s And I mean I think how many people in the room are would consider itself primarily a JavaScript developer There's actually two in the room. I was expecting to get three as if I think it's zero Because there's really because we never connected with that community in the way that we should have as as like free software activists And there's a ton of different things that why I'm wrong because of that because we didn't take them seriously And that was our fault and that was another way the leadership was bad Historically in FOSS. Hi, I think they're it. Oh Go ahead. So one question related here is that the ethical licenses seem to be following a code of conduct kind of behavior trying to enforce a code of conduct for the corporate user community or provide a community if you want it while Trying to defend against abusive for some reason behavior by these corporations against others or in the community or as isolationists, so How have we been able to enforce our course of conduct in user communities in the past? Well, well codes of so so project codes of conduct haven't been As I understand them haven't been targeted Against Participation outside of a project itself. So there there's been this assumption that you you can You can if you're a copyright owner you can police Behavior that falls outside the scope of the license But but codes of conduct are things that only apply to in Activity within a project or activity at a projects event for example at a conference like this one So I think that that may be that that kind of distinction may frustrate some some people who You know, they they see this the I would say the success of the adoption of codes of conduct by projects But they see a gap between you know what those cover and the way the software is being used In a much larger sphere outside of the project itself so I mean I'm I'm pretty sympathetic actually to a lot of the the people who are Talking about, you know ethical licenses. I agree with what others have said that that you know I don't feel that that licenses are a good mechanism. I Don't currently believe that That these kinds of licenses should be considered free software licenses but but I do I think that I have a lot of sympathy and and I Feel that what I don't know what others here think but as I said before I think that what's different now is that this is not This is not a fringe thing. This is like There are people who are speaking out about this issue who are at really at the very center of of this this movement This question is for you Karen because you sort of mentioned Better You sort of mentioned the sort of the ethical core of the free software movement that got a lot of people interested in how it feels like Maybe in some ways it's failed or it's moved away from that And this is a big issue that we are seeing in the software industry I'd like to hear more about you know Do you do you feel like this issue still sits within the free software community and the organization's advocating for it? And if so, what sort of role do you envision these organizations playing? Yeah, I mean, it's funny because saying this issue is tough There are so many issues that are being raised and I don't know but the intersection from between Our software and our lives is the critical part of where we operate and you know for and you asked me so I assume it's in part because I work at software freedom Conservancy and I advocate for software freedom as a You know public good so I'll say in that like if in if in Conservancy's judgment that though it we're not talking about Critical issues that affect people's lives and that are essential for us to have a better you know Situation with our technology then I don't then I assume that We in Conservancy's board would decide not to work on those issues So to me I think where software touches all these issues I think they're critically important and I think we need to think about them And that's why you know I've tried to work on things like contract patch and getting people to talk about their employment Agreements and thinking creatively about all the different ways that we can the the main thing about what I try to do And we try to do is to think about like what pragmatic? activities can we do to address the issue at hand? And you know that's been in sort of our our role in our niche And so we're we're kind of like project-based you know like and I think that's true of some of our member projects too We have very close relationship with like outreach II for example because where we see in equity That's a project that that we You know we're we're a little more involved in than even just our normal member project so You know and have a real partnership there So I you know this is a very blathering non-answer actually as I listen to myself talk But I would say we have to be active here because otherwise what are we doing? Yeah, hello, so following back on today, and you've been participating in a lot of things Just ask a question about like the Politics of open source that we've seen today, right? And first I highly respect I discover more and more about your background and what you've done over the last years And and I totally respect that But let's say from a lot of the people who spoke like there is a big Let's say indirect direct or indirect link to big corporation funding right at some point and and we can state that They've done great things also to contribute to open source But my question as you are leaders leaders in this space and for all the leaders in that space say What are the guarantees the community takes to be sure to always be independent in ethics with this? I'm sure I think we can keep our ethics. We even with it. We are funded with Whatever funds the thing but what are the guarantees the community has taken over time and what are the current ones today if I'm understood well Well, I'll take a stab at that. I I think that It's a it's a really tough question. I for me in my experience You know when I first got involved with free software it was almost exclusively volunteers and now there are a lot of people that are you know The do open source is their day job and I think that's great and You know you bring up a question of what it what does that influence mean, you know for the movement and You know, I think that it's a tough question But I actually think that you know stepping back. We're at a moment in our in our movement where we're being challenged by The definition of our movement at all. What is it that frees? What does free software mean? What is open source mean and you know, one of the things that we heard earlier today is that our original notions of this that we got written down are you know quite quite old 20 years old and so Answering your question about ethics. I think has to we even have to You know think of what is the evolution of our movement and what does it mean? I think that that Can answer your question I for me I'm really motivated by the idea of collaboration and not having to ask permission and Maybe some classic notions of software freedom and I think that it's tricky to see how that's going to evolve with all the things that have put pressure on us like network computing and In such things so it's a it's a tough question, but I think that we even have a bigger question, which is How are we defining what we're doing and how are we educating people that are that are new? Into caring about what it is that we care about. I Appreciate you mentioning politics many Karen often tells me to stop saying that Fundamentally the work that at least I do not too much as she does is basically being a politician But the free software and open source has become a political process It's the worst kind of political process in a lot of ways because we as you mentioned we have all these companies that have this influence Nobody elected them that they don't represents the community and nobody elected me either. We a conservancy We have a self-perpetuating board on the OSI deserves credit for being basically the only Organization in our community that actually holds an election and goes to the people, you know The but let's let's put that aside for a moment I think it's great that they run an election and they actually get votes and respect the votes of of their constituency and and we need more of that kind of Republic a small our Republic kind of Representation Debbie and is another great example. That's a constitutes the only free software project. That's constitutional Republic And and so and so we have this weird political structure Which is just ripe for corruption because there's corporations floating around hiring people and people go to work for companies even though they're technically working on a project and we have not solved any of that political complication and I Work on it every day, and I really don't even know if I understand how it works and how to fix it and how to make it Better so so I it's it's really tough. I don't know what to do about it But I recognize this is what you're raising a huge problem So first, thank you for this session because I think it's the most interesting session of the day One point on my side as a European person. I'm a bit Not finding everything I would like to find in this type of session because I like the European vision as Well in addition to a more US centric vision of the low So I would like for example the Google versus Oracle case I would love to see what does the supreme court result means for us in Europe What does it mean for us? What would be the consequences? Is there any impact for us as well and For all the rest of the day I would also like to have in the board with you some European lawyers that could bring an additional Set of information around what what what you are bringing, which is already great. Don't take me wrong So a couple of points Your question is very very apropos. I think it would be really great to have an analysis of what Oracle v. Google would mean specifically to the European Union. That's a it's a fabulous question We have throughout the history of the dev room we've really tried hard to represent a diversity of views and diversity not just of Europeans and People from all around the world, but also from women and underrepresented people so And you you saw European lawyers up today. You heard Miriams cross-examination. She's brilliant. That was great And we've had you know other Yeah, so we had a variety it could be better and I take that I take that point and I do want to go further and acknowledge that one of the the campaigns that I most admire in Europe is Public you know code, you know public money public code. I think that this is a great message and this is Something that can articulate what we care about to a broader audience and and I think that that that message and talking to my fellow Europeans has been Well received I think people in the general population get that message more readily than equivalent Americans so I Love the like cross-jurisdictional aspect of your question and I I think if we do this again We should absolutely see because we do a CFP But we wind up not getting as many submissions or all along the things that we think should be addressed So we'll work hard to encourage people to submit on topics that Evaluate these cases in a cross-jurisdictional way. I really like that And yeah, I just want to say as I often do when I travel outside the US I apologize for my country and the policies that it exports around the world. I Was born there. It wasn't my fault Okay, well, we'll pass Philippe the microphone a little bit later for him to make his point There was a question here It's not a question. I would like to to answer what does Oracle the Google mean in the European Union? so the European Copyright Directive on computer programs explicitly excludes interfaces from being copyrightable to to foster interoperability so At least from my view there wouldn't be such a case in Europe Google could just have taken the interface Thank you so much I just there is a case the SAS case the in the ECJ. I think that is directly on point on what to your comment It's interesting to imagine if the ECJ rules one way and the Supreme Court rules a different way That's going to make our life even more complicated Okay, if he wanted to say something Okay, okay, so My question following up on what you said about what could be new ways for the free software movement to Not really reinvent itself, but like Find an identity that matters now you mentioned just now public money public code But in general the starting from the free for freedoms or the open source definition all the definitions of the free software movement have been very much focused on what Could be appealing to developers Do you think that we miss me missed an opportunity to involve the users? Yes. Yes. Yes. I agree with you I agree with everything you're about to say yes No, no, I was going to say when and how and what could we do now? It's only questions. You cannot agree with them well, I well This is what you know kind of a subject that's close to my heart, which is how can we give users standing in free Software culture and hardware and one you know one of the challenges that we have especially in considering open hardware licenses is that The end user that receives a product Doesn't have standing to insist on the source and I think we need to You know, I think we need to involve users. I like that This might be a good thing to discuss next year if we have a room If you did you want to follow up? It was covered. Yeah, okay It was discussed before one more question or So again great thanks for all this wonderful talk and please upload to the wonderful And I personally looking forward what you have in store for us for next year 10th anniversary session, right? All right Well, I want to thank everybody for coming out. I know it's been it's a it's a long day It's a hard building to get to and we really appreciate your input You can you forgetting your shoes muddy? Yeah You can find at least my email address on the foster mailing list where we let out the CFP and I'd love to get your feedback if you didn't have a chance to get your question or thought in and Before you leave today if you could we could ask you a favor to look down and pick up Any trash that you find and deposit it in the trash bins that are on either side of the room and help us clean up That would be great. I just want to point out that last year was our one zero anniversary in octal anyway So it's already happened One last applause for Tom Marvel the amazing