 Okay, so hi, I'm Simon Phipps. I'm going to be talking to you about Hi-Side in a minute. But I thought I would take the opportunity to show you how I'm doing the presentation. I'm doing the presentation here on a Google Pixelbook Chromebook. Chromebooks are renowned as just being a web browser in the box. And that is indeed what you're going to hear if you look throughout the gear. That Chromebook is running directly on top of the Alexa code. There is almost no other software getting in the way of running. But what Google has just introduced on the Chromebook is the LXD, LXC lightweight container. And they then integrated that into the Chrome desktop so that all of the desktop environment will get consumed by KDE and are consumed by the Chrome desktop. And they then also integrated that into the file system to give file access. And they have then sent up so that there is a default container to get downloaded to enable it. So when you start out with your Chromebook, you run in the settings here and you ask to enable the Learn to Beta. When you enable it, it sits for about 10 minutes while it downloads the desktop before that is contained. And it then enables in the Chrome menu over here a terminal. So it enables this terminal here. And that's a full backup that you can use exactly as you would expect from the LXD. That's running in a container on the LXD. You can also start out with Supervisory Container for the time that you control LXD using the LXC smartphone tool. And if you decide to operate with your terminal, you can have multiple containers on your Chromebook. So it would be perfectly possible that every container chosen to develop an environment and a separate container is a desktop environment. You have them running at the same time with different apps. So you have two different versions of your development environment running in them. So they've got a reasonably coming thing with the file system. Because it's running in a container, the file system is inside the container and they have two different ways you could think about that problem. You could make the outside file system available inside the container. But they've put the other way around it. They make the file system inside the container available out in the outside space. So down here they make click on the files. These files are files in the file system inside the LXD container. And Chrome OS is talking across an API to pull out the different files on the LXD container. So that means the integration is reasonably thorough. You'd like to use these Chrome OS playgrounds to download files and then insert it into the container for me. The integration is not absolutely thorough. There are still features that are missing. So you'll notice in a minute, for example, or it's probably okay. You'll notice in a minute, for example, that I am unable to detect the Chrome because I'm in the Austrian language in the League of Office. So I can't really present the console. But overall, I would say this video is pretty awesome and I'm very keen to see the environment that I've given you here. So then I'm in League of Office. This is probably League of Office I got just by sending out a store in League of Office and grabbing it out of Debbie. I think you can find it in 5.2. It's the version that is in on Debbie. It's sort of long. I didn't ask you any questions, but let's grab it at 4.1. So then we'll update it all the time. And it's also not usually particularly fun to be through the face of a service. Because those are a pretty default environment. So that's League of Office on Chromebook. Chromebook is very clean. Almost all the new ones have got this capability on them. The world goes straight to it. It goes ahead and releases a new Chromebook on Chrome. People have this capability. This Chromebook also runs on any Android app as well. So this is beautiful run on any Android app. Yeah, it has a much more integrated approach. It's running, it's forming by Google. And it has a limited environment. You know, managing yourself. It just contains a lot of stuff. I think it's a lot of fun to be able to do Chromebook. Sorry, Debbie. That's fine. So now we've got the schedule. See, I talked E2, now I'm going to talk OSI to you. Hope you all enjoy the page. That's the type of thing you'd be able to do a lot of stuff. And that means you're now a journey to the work. And that means everything you do from now has to be over the source. Okay? The king is alive. I'll refer you to the source you're doing now. So let's talk about the source. We're using the method of the 80 years old, beginning of February this year. There's some discussion about, exactly, my name is 20 years old. There's the founders of this group. They were somewhere around the 7th, the 10th, the 14th. There's someone around there that open source has come. Now, open source, I was just wondering, because I don't know free software. Before open source, what you call open source today is called free software. You can use your first name. And the origins of free software are in two weeks. And depending on when you try to get a part of it, you may well see that it's only one of these people. But the true origins of free software are in first place. Bill Goodall here, who was the author of the primary author of BSD News. And the BSD license arose finally in 1988. It arose with the licensing company, which dates back as far as 1977. And then Richard Stolman, the UPL, was founded in 1989, but it might say that it's essentially extents back from the beginning of the 1980s. And both of them were available where software was expected to be freely developed with the source code. And so the origins of the thinking of the first software system go way back. Richard Stolman says about free software. Free software is software that gives you the user free. And that use of the word free to me and spread from freedom is highly favored by Richard. His work was saying that the needs and rights are self-evident. But unfortunately, we found at the beginning of the 1990s that when we were about to discuss what the company was about for a software, the executives heard the words of free and assumed that they wanted to give everything like a new way that I'm charging for it. And that word free took so much unexplained that many of us thought we had another word to talk about very software in an environment where there is just a first language. And in my recognition as a non-first language, the equivalent of the word for free is normally not a problem. And so in the country like, I'm very familiar with the leading companies where they look at the software need rate. And software need rate is open source. Yes, the phrase means free software is the same thing. You don't need another name down the road. But in the country like, it is the first one where you aren't convinced that you need another word to describe the four freedoms of use, study and prove their software. And so 30 years ago, Bruce Carrickness was one of the people who was involved in something else. He says that open source is the name of a marketing campaign. Open source is a marketing campaign for free software. And the goal of that marketing campaign is to get as many business software as possible investing in free software. So I go from the very beginning, it's not being very confident that it's been instead increased in how the free software there is to be. And to achieve that, I'm not confusing this to people about the intent of the software. Because it's very easy to confuse liberty and price if you've got English to your first name. And so as you hear it's going to be York, you can see the dot-prime commuter in the posture of liberty, hoping they will think of liberty and freedom of this liberty and price are the same thing. So open source succeeded because it enabled softwares and owners to advance software free work as well as in their private matters. I think that's the number one reason why open source succeeded. Prior to 1998, if you wanted to work on software free, the only narrative you had to use for the boss was a narrative that started with word free. And you started with word free and stopped listening to the network. And the open source market now allows for a conversation that lasted beyond one word. And as soon as people heard about the value of open source software, they wanted to use it. They can illegally see reasons to use it. So in the first decade, we went through a fairly valuable progression from being upstarts, advocating for open source software to being in a gold-breaking market where people were trying to admit that it was a new business model. OSR was founded in 1998. It was founded at a number of stages. There was a meeting at the V.A. in the Alps in February 1999 where a number of leaders of the open source movement met together to discuss how to explain free software to businesses in the context of the difficult discussion that happened at Nenscape over Liberator, and that experience informed their understanding of the word free as we go. The first decade, the term open source was coined in 1998. How can we get more careful with that phrase for you? We will call it free software when it stops as early as 1996, as far as I can find. And I've met people who played their music in the term earlier, although I haven't heard their memories but open source as a movement started in 1998 was being piece-crystallized with thoughts of the people in that room of view. They said, hey, wouldn't it be a great term to use? And the leaders of the free software movement said, yes, that would be great. In mid-literate, it was normal for Liberator the first six months to be very supportive of the theory. But I believe that he had a simple argument which was some of the founders of the movement and he practically had to make this deal closer to a great deal. I don't think there is any reason today why free software is a problem than non-supportable open source software or wide open source software. So software supported and non-supportable free software because they had just the same thing to make a difference. Yeah, the software that was published in 1999 was created by Bruce Perron. He was the author of the debut of Free Software Guidelines and he was in the middle of writing the debut of Free Software Guidelines with Eric Perron and said that they needed an open source software and Bruce said, hey, leave this. And so the two things were absolutely identical. What day is it now? They had done the effort to justify themselves then but they are still close enough for you to treat them to the same thing. At the beginning of the movement most open source software was a dropping replacement of the corporate private software often on the desktop. And so early on the big power was to have nothing controlled by Microsoft and Microsoft as a consequence was not impressed at all by Microsoft and was particularly insistent on the latest and described as famously as a cancer. That didn't stop them from becoming a bad man by the middle part of that decade. There was a rush of new open source licenses. There was also a rush to make money off new components of open source to scope soon the idea of an open source. And 2004 it became a character of Microsoft's opposition when beyond calling it a cancer it was actually an organized campaign and he found out how to develop open source. By 2005, units that started to be open source after nearly 40 years of being a proprietary software when some made some large open source software and by 2006 the standards of the movement began to realize that the open source was for implementations which is why open source should not be open source. In 2007 I knew about open source and so the last key platform that is accessible to new open source the applications of open source was Tomcat, Jungle open source the unit operating systems of open source all wanted to be open source. So by the beginning of this first decade of open source 2008 I'd say that most of the CIOs understood what open source was they understood the game of business benefit they understood that it was about collaboratively maintaining the software that they depended on instead of the mass enterprise software. In 2001 we had the one that we still need to carry on paying and what OSI does is it crystallizes the consensus about licensing and getting concern to the software levels so I'll explain that. Secondly, open source licensing is multi-natural that is to say it is between all the partners that are maintaining the software all software licensing prior to that would be bi-natural. It would be between unknown user and hence the germane user licensing area which is a bi-natural between you and the copyrighted owner but by being multi-natural I'll give you a blanket provision open source 207TL for development and development setting free to the user and finding out how to create safe services for collaboration for the better. So what I thought about the first time I took the consensus I'm really talking about the licensed review process the last review process is the process by which the new open source license gets by software free it's very important that the license is half of a software free because that is the gateway marker that tells developers that the tons of this license have been kept and there are no tracks and it's possible you could consider other licenses to be effective in this but you wouldn't have any reason to have that kind of experience beyond your own opinion because you wouldn't have anybody else to connect to the agreement or collectivism to rely on So what I thought about was that doesn't act as a king of open source rather I suppose the speaker of the house it moderates the conversation we have a conversation about the license there's a conversation going on right now the license should be made against about it it proposes a new open source license and members of the community of anybody you're a very important authority I'll work with one of this government to do about the license when that discussion is centered to them and all the opinions are seen by the meeting's friends then the OSI directs a summarizing conversation to see if there is a consensus and then if there is a consensus the OSI approach votes to agree the consensus has been agreed and the license is now approved and so what we do is to crystallize the community's consensus we stop the debate for carrying on for over and we say although it seems all this but all the opinions have been expressed we're going to cut the conversation now we're going to say either this license is approved or our credit license needs some more work but I don't think we've ever denied approval for a license but there have been many cases where we have said that the license needs more work before it would be approved and that's what's going to happen and that's what's on the license review today by the way it seems that the meetings are very poorly and it's a very hard public advice given to the OSI it's not going to like it that's not the way we don't want to try and do open socializing we now have about 80 of them we think that almost all of the common ideas will be tried out and if you come up with a new common idea a very common one you check with the front before you post it to the license reviewers because we're not very sure if we haven't done that before that's a good way to go but we definitely won't do that the license described the environment for a business reviewer it is the truth between the two companies that says where they hate to go where they don't hate to go it is the grandparents of your career and open socializing is not a problem but open socializing is the constitution of the community it describes what rights can be awaited for everybody and what the terms are by the human part to use software-free developers for you to study the software for you to improve it to better ignore other people's needs and the freedom to distribute by the written version or your one if I'm wrong and all open socializing is to be checked by the community so open socializing is a multi-national consensus of the commitment to norms to a community and that's why you never try to argue you never try to make them you never try to negotiate them because they already be collectively grouped by a community to be described now for the lawyer are they described an open-source license creates safe spaces for a community to collaborate it does that in three ways by mitigating control points by isolating business models and by guaranteeing rights on another party by mitigating ownership of control points what I mean is an open-source license gives you all the millions you need in order to use the software that's around you and you can reasonably say this to that it is all of the rights that are on the side of it try to assemble it in English and see if you remember what rights are right secondly isolating business models open-source does not have business models this is simply and an open-source community that's supposed to justify to a community in order to defend a business model an open-source community has got to enable every participant to satisfy the motivation of the community so your motivation to come with a community was to make a profit we should not be frilled on or frilled to do that but on the other hand my freedom to make money should not take away your freedom to make money and so open-source is the tools of all the other systems and stops them from messing with the community and because of that open-source communities are often places where there is a profit that's not involved because it's safe for competitiveness when we ever collaborate with the software that does not differ in the area and that's the reason why if licenses are being bought for approval OSI will not make exceptions to allow to accommodate a business model so the discussion going on for example with our readers use of the open-source laws in the open-source licensing or the attempt to have a a no-component license both of those are going to be not all failed and recommended as open-source by OSI and by the wider community because they failed the test of isolation from a business model or isolation from motivation that's open-source removes all the barriers to collaborate by giving you permission in advance and I think that that is the primary reason why open-source is one I'm very careful about saying that open-source is one but open-source became by the end of the first decade the default to something for hanging the work of the software in the community software it was not before when you were a specialist software market it wasn't embedded software although the embedded one computed an awful lot of open-source software but in the community or complex software market open-source is the default to something that you can make a better upgrade and it did that because from reduce beats rehabilitation by collaborative development and the only reason we didn't use to do collaborative work was because we didn't have permission for example to ask your boss or you had to ask your lawyer or you had to ask both and so both really some kind of character that chilled the community and software free of the source runs from the right team in advance and OSI approval license guaranteed that you have the focus so I didn't argue that new license doesn't need OSI approval I think that's a mistake community owners don't check the license with their lawyer they check their license with OSI and they accept and ask you for approval and if we have they say well that's clear for me I'm going to go and if we have they say well I don't really care what you do in OSI because OSI has never approved it it must be a problem so I think this role we've been playing has been a really valuable role in the first day so the second day of open source things move differently we saw brawl in the right culture we saw the bacon of software patterns becoming real and we saw arguments about PPL and forceful this big summary of the day for you Microsoft by 2015 but just now the open source was no longer a cancer and in fact I can undone and I think that by 2018 that state did a great job in finding true and I'm having to talk to you about why I think that I'm not on video today OSI is at the heart of almost all new software even if it looks for ground assurance and problems it's probably other sorts of insider problems in my view, software stops being open source if you don't have software free from it and so when we put BSD inside a packet of software or BSD inside then they will be open source software and it doesn't give you software free from it so there's no point in you considering opening source so all that is in 1979 when the rules had to play and the rules had to play with open source people I'd suggest to you that today the rules will take you again the place where you can make money with open source software is changing I keep saying to you is it open source is never done until you get to the cloud I don't think that's true I think what it says here is you will see a change in the way that people use open source open source is a real value is that it lets you innovate without asking it lets you start where other's really it's kind of a setback up until the time comes it lets you stay in control of the resources that you make if you want to and it lets you spend your resources on enabling other people to collaborate instead of you as a huge oligographic organization that used to be the only one it lets you innovate and then let others maintain the maintenance of your innovation it lets you influence the level of your systems even though you're small the open foundation leave office open office before it uniquely Microsoft's business dominance I believe it was open office that brought down Microsoft office as the dominant force in computing because we came up with open document before in the 2000s we came up with a alternative to Microsoft's office we were often the reason why Microsoft had to cut their rights between decade bills and actually end up being used and one of my great regrets that we didn't find a way of monetizing the abuse is to reduce Microsoft's service rates which would have been great we have got some of a cut that was insane people said if you don't reduce your rights we will be open office we will be free wouldn't be money New technology is only possible with open office I don't think people do clap but I think every time you try to scale I don't think you can do the IOT without open source because you really don't want to count how many things there are out of time to do license management so open source is a fundamentally language I don't think it's out of the simply because that's a copy there I think that it is actually still integrated in that so what's happening in the third I think we are going to see a community on our senate in what is going on with open source software I think we are going to see a single project companies finding harder and harder to create business while we are going to succeed I think we are going to see licensing change it's going to stabilize and there are also going to be the prime single software framework in using open source software in the enterprise and since we are having that by the side the president will move into new roles and take the form you want into the service of a community I think we are going to have a community world where we are going to see most people who work with open source for general business we are definitely going to see most people who work with specialist on a particular thing but I think open source is going to be very non-critical about assembly and solutions and I think that open source people are going to be the assemblers of solutions and thus deep development in order to prepare for that I recommend that in where you are going to cultivate a culture of community the key skill that every software engineer is working in community possibly working in community remotely and secondly I think single project is our best challenge the first decade it was the blockchain next decade every presentation you heard was talking about open source for general business just like every presentation today is talking about how they are using the blockchain people really would like to have a release train model so that they will be able to control and provide for their software and in the third decade of open source I think we are going to see different migrating by the way rather than different migrating by the way and as a consequence of that I suggest that we get really good at managing the complex assembly of single parts into something that is unexpected and beautiful those are all vanity licenses coming from both companies that I worked with which will be my via public license and they will be included in public license and some may have some industry standards license by the second decade we realise that we really need that in the licenses we are going to introduce together public communities different and what we came and done on the second decade compliance in the world of server license I think in the third decade the biggest problem is going to be other compliance and compliance I think it's going to be compliance in particular actually if you maintain the build system you really should go into a community of that kind because one day it's going to be really important to you you need to make sure that you maintain industry give credit free because by giving credit free you will remember and when you're done you will remember in a way that satisfies the terms of the license that we introduced I recommend that you only use high-side proof licenses no matter how selective the idea of adding a ride-off or using a monitoring license like the FBSD please don't do it because you'll discover that compliance with the terms of the under-application system is going to be a burden to you regarding the process I think we're going to be discovering software free the first decade of open source we were turning it down on the other side of the moral basis of free software in a different vocabulary to explain software free but in the third decade we're now facing new problems and the students for those problems are almost all the way to the industry market by looking at the freedom of the end users to use the source code of the software and I think in this decade we're going to really discover software free as our compass for solving new business problems as they run in our role I believe that you have a lot of standards on community verification and on the core of people's authenticity of software when it comes to free software I recommend that you're probably going to be involved with the people to join the business organization or to join the complex foundation or to join in some of our and I think you can do that because that is the new way that open source communities are coming together but don't forget to support OSI Free Software Foundation perhaps Software Freedom Conservancy because you need us pure characters to argue for the fundamentals if you only support the consortia don't support the characters you'll find that it would be easier and easier for a bad guy to take over so you need that and carry on to your work so that's been a third decade lifestyle but it's just been working for a resource great contribution to collaborating with the world but it's getting really good the complex assembly of civil violence all to make sure that the community and the community get the information you only need to be in compliance not just a reciprocal license term but also non reciprocal licenses being a practical guarantee cherish software freedom and tell other people why and cultivate characters as well as for the consortia and of course please don't it's only $40 for a small number of young sources and we send you on very pleasant very skilled staff who do wonderful things not about directors today I'm not paid by OSI until the birthday of my mother and the anniversary of her birthday