 Hello everyone, I'm Nick Vidal. I work with the OSI which is the open source initiative We have a long history together with Dabian actually one of the main core leaders of the Dabian 20 years ago who is Bruce parents? He helped define what's open source. He wrote the open source definition So we really have a good history together I have my slides both in Portuguese and English. I just want to ask To get a sense of what's the audience here if you guys speak English or Portuguese can anybody If you guys speak only Portuguese, can you raise your hand please? So everybody speaks English. Okay, so I'll be giving this talk in English There is a part that's seen in Portuguese, but we can work that out as well So I like the logo here. It's quite similar if you see it So we have this shared history and also shared values The Dabian project has always been a proponent of free software and of open source And I'll go a bit through our history together so Actually open source was preceded by the free software movements, we have a lot a lot in common and The free software definition was created by Richard Salman and basically there are four freedoms the The the we share so The freedom number number zero is the freedom to run the program as you wish for any purpose The freedom number one is the freedom to study how the program works and change it So it does your computing as you wish The freedom number two is the freedom to read distributes copies so you can help your neighbor and The freedom number three is the freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others so basically those are the four freedoms and this has been developed and has been working for over 35 years actually the whole The history behind sharing code and working together collaborating with others. It's much longer than that It has existed since computing has started and Only later did proprietary software came into scene so Richard Stallman when he saw this he wanted to go back to roots where everybody could share code and Have those freedoms To enjoy sharing and collaborating and working together If you look at the So here's in the definition in Portuguese if anybody in the audience Would like to to see this I'll make the the slides available On the website as well. So both those who speak Portuguese and English they can understand and This is the open source definition. What's interesting here is that Both the open source definition and the free software definition. They're very much compatible They were actually the open source definition was inspired By the free software movements, they all came together Sometimes people see those fights Between the open source advocates and the free software advocates But actually we share much more in common than we have differences So this is something that we should celebrate instead of fighting each other. We should work together and in fact the open source source definition was Drafted by Bruce parents, of course with community inputs over 20 years ago and This was Inspired by the dabbing free software guidelines. So that the dabbing projects was core to the open source definition It was your guidelines that inspired the creation of the open source definition I wonder if people knew about this Did it does anybody Know about this did you guys know about this? Yeah, so so you guys are courts of the open source definition And it was very much inspired by the free software movement. So the the dabbing free software guidelines They're part of the dabbing social contracts and they're actually 10 I Don't think you'll be able to see the 10th one here, but they're actually 10 Main principles So the first one is the free redistribution of the code The second one is to have the source code available The third one is to allow the derives works. You can change the code and and redistributed The fourth one is the integrity of the offers source code The fifth one is the no discrimination against persons or groups the the six principle is no discrimination against the areas of And over the seven Fields of and over the seventh principle is the distribution of the lessons The eighth principle is the lessons must be not must not be specific to a product The ninth one is the lessons must not restricts other software and the 10th one which you guys can't see here is the it must be next technology neutral So I wanted to explore each one of these In more detail and to have a conversation with you guys Since I was actually expecting people in the audience to be more Portuguese focus, so I actually had my slides here In Portuguese for each one of this so I'll just take a moment and I'll Loads the English version if you guys don't mind Do you guys prefer that I believe so right? So just a second, please I Might need your help if you can Okay, so we have the the English version here my apologies for that let me zoom in zoom this in Okay, so about the free red distribution and if you guys want to comment that if you guys have any questions regarding that Just let me know so one of the main the main Principles is being allowed to redistribute your codes. I think that's really important and So let me read that The lessons shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software Distribution containing programs from several different sources The lessons shall not restrict a royalty or other fee for such sale So since the very beginning you're allowed to make money from free software. That's one of the reasons why We created the term open source because the free in English Tends to be associated with Gratis as in free and perhaps not freedom So companies didn't do not understand some companies do not understand that in fact you can sell Free software and in fact this this is encouraged so by not When you launch a software you can't just an open source offer You can say you can't make money of this or you can't create a service or put it in the clouds and create a service around this So this is one of the the important aspects one of the important principles around Open source software And of course the second one is about making the source code available You wouldn't be possible for you to study the source code and to modify the source code if you don't have that So the program must include source code and must allow distribution in source code as well as compile form So this is very basic There are a lot of software that the source is available, but they're not open source Because they don't allow you to modify. They don't allow you to sell the service So even though this is one of the principles to have the source available You have to have much more freedom to be a free software and to be open source The third one is derives works. So again, this is very much about the ability to modify the work one of the four freedoms So the lessons must allow modifications and derives works and must allow them to be Distributed under the same terms as the lessons of the regional software This is very much one of the Aligns with the free free software definition The fourth one is the integrity of the offer source code. So Let's suppose the Debian launches Version 10 You guys just launched version 10 of Debian, right? You can't have some some other party launch Debian version 10 And be a software that's totally different from from from that one Because that that goes against the offers source code. So That creates confusion People won't know what's Debian 10. What's the what's the 10th version? So you have to respect that and if you want to create a Derivative from this if you want to take the Debian 10 version and create a new software around that even the same the same version you have to Use another name and another version number. So it won't confuse users So that's what the fourth principle is about The fifth one is about the no discrimination against persons or groups So you can't restrict the software and say only Americans can use this code or only Brazilians can use this code or any type of group of people only The boys the boys club can use this type of code So everybody can use the software if it's truly free and open source software Anybody in the whole world can use this Of course as you guys probably are aware the United States has some restrictions in terms of Who can Sell or create a service to some types of countries But that's another thing. So if you if somebody from Iran If he wants to run a software if you want to download software a free software He's very much allowed to do that and we shouldn't discriminate It's like a basic human Freedom right The sixth one is no discrimination against fields of endover and This has become very popular now that the cloud has come up because Some software some companies are trying to restrict Where that software will run? So there has come so there has came up some lessons that say you can't run a service in the clouds using the software And one example of this Is MongoDB for example They so they have restricted this and this is just not free and open source software And it's not just about the cloud that this has always happened. So Linux What when it was created many providers It wasn't called the clouds, but many companies provided Linux as an infrastructure and many people could use that and and many people many companies and Individuals did use that and they weren't paying royalty to to Linus or To the Linux community they could use that freely. So just because it's called the cloud now It doesn't make a difference. You you can still run the service and you can still charge for that for that service The distribution of the lessons is very important as well So the rights attached to that program. They must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed we followed the need for execution on additional lessons by those parties and This is important. You you can't just take a software and just change the lessons And and not allow it to be free and and open you can't just close the the software You must allow people to download the same program and use it normally and This is important to respect respect the offers Wish to to keep that as an free and open source software So there there has been some changes to lessons Some companies they used to have some program in that Particular lessons and then they changed but People can still use that older software version Using that lessons you can't prohibits People using from using their old software using their last lessons. So that's perpetual So that's the case for example for MongoDB, which was using a GPL and people can still use that older version Without any problems The lessons must not be specific to a product So the rights attached to the program must not depends on the programs being part of a particular software distribution if the program is Extracted from that distribution and use or distributed within the terms of the programs lessons All parties to whom the program is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted in Conjunction with the original software distribution. So this applies very well to the Dabian Projects because you guys use a lot of Projects it's not just the Linux kernel There are many other software. There are part of this and so each one of these have they might have a different lessons and And This goes in line as well with the second the knife principle, which is the lessons must not restrict other software So you can't make it viral. I mean Sometimes people are worried that you're going to install a free software and then the whole stack Has to be open has to be free and that's not the case So the lessons must not place restrictions on other software That is distributed along with the lessons software For example, the lessons must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open source software And finally the 10th one. So what's interesting is that the the Dabian the free Free software Dabian guidelines had those nine principles since the very beginning and And the 10th one was added later Which is the lessons must not be technology neutral and this one is mostly to help people who are installing the software Via command line or via any other means and it must be easy for them as well. You can't Have people force them to click to accept A term or whatever It must be very easy to to compile and to install So that's why this was added to Free and open source software should be should be easily Available if you want to automate the installation, you should allow this So that's another interesting principle that was added So that was That's basically the open source definition this has been For over 20 years valid and it has worked well We have recently Has some challenges Some companies are trying to redefine what's open source, but the community has been very much supportive of the open source definition and they have and the open source initiative has worked Together with the communities to protect the open source definition. So yeah, thanks So I want to talk about the most popular OSI approved lessons. So these are the most popular ones So we have the very we starting from the very basic one, which is the most I would say Permissive, which is the MIT. It's very short It basically says don't sue us. You can use the software but but don't sue us It's very basic. It's like a few paragraphs and then we have the BSD we have two versions of BSD the two clauses and the three clauses And it's very basic as well they have It's similar to the MIT and BSD they're quite similar and The more we go to the bottom the more reciprocal it becomes and Let me explain what's reciprocal So the MIT is very easy going. You can use for whatever purpose that you want as long as As long as respect the freedoms, but you can use that in a commercial product You can make changes to that Software and if you don't want to release those change those changes You don't have to and you can you can create a new lessons if you want and create a different program The and if you go down towards that and you reach the GPL or a GPL Those are very much They require you To if you want to use this software And if you make changes you have to make those changes available as free and open as well So that's what what's about what that's the main difference about being reciprocal or not reciprocal so if you if you want to make your software Very much available to anyone and if you don't mind if they use that code for whatever You probably should use like an MIT or BSD lessons But if you really care about free software and open software and you really want to If people make changes you really want to have them publish those changes Then probably you want to use it or a GPL or if you are more strict You can use the a GPL as well If you guys want I can go in more detail around this Later on I can discuss with you guys and also at open source org. We have a summary of this as well and Since last year especially While we were celebrating 20 years of the open source initiative Many companies have challenged. I wouldn't say many companies. I was saying some companies have challenged the open source definition so we have One famous one is Redis. They they changed their their lessons For the commons class not the core products, but the software around that and the Apache community was not very happy because they were using the Apache plus commons class and the Apache software Foundation they had to protect their trademark. You can just use the name and attach something to that That makes it non non free and unopened So the Apache was they their response was really strong in terms of having the commons class Which makes it non-open? We also have the server side public lessons, which was launched by the MongoDB and One interest and basically this lessons was a way for MongoDB to Have Amazon or other cloud providers to pay them a fee if they wanted to use MongoDB And I don't think that's actually working as they intended And it's not that's not free and open source software according to the definition because you're restricting how You want the software to work as a service? so and this actually is quite interesting for the Debian projects because When MongoDB changed their lessons The Debian project said hey, this is not free software We're we're not shipping We're not shipping MongoDB in the distribution it's non free and Red hats and also Fedora. They dropped MongoDB So if you wanted to install MongoDB on those Distributions, you will have to do it another way. You wouldn't you wouldn't be normally available on the Debian projects We also have some other licenses like the confluence What's interesting about the confluence they they never said that this was open source While the other two radice among the bee they wanted to to have their licenses A knowledge as open source, but they didn't succeed, but the confluence lessons they were very Straightforward and they said hey, this is not free and open source software and that's okay I think that's important if you want to use a lessons which is proprietary you should be very clear about that and not just mix open with a proprietary and try to squeeze like a bait and switch So I think that's better One interesting lessons as well is MariaDB Which is like a fork of my sequel and what's interesting about that is that it's not open source Initially, but after a time it becomes that software becomes an open source software and You you made up like a How come is it open source or it's not so Actually Bruce parents worked with MariaDB and their lessons. He has a time expiration I don't remember. I don't remember how long that time, but it's like one year or whatever So it's not free. It's not open for a period of time for one year and After that one year expires Then it becomes free and open source free and open source software. So it's a quite interesting Change to the lessons and that's the way that they they wanted to create a lesson. So Companies would pay for that advance one year advance to use that software and after one year Everybody could use it. So that's one of the ideas and we have another one So for example Facebook reacts. This was a big big news in Like two years ago Because they they were using the BSD lessons, but they added a patent clause saying that if you were to use React in one of your projects wherever that is You wouldn't be able to sue fate sue Facebook for any patent infringement and it was like very viral so if you were a company X And you're doing and you had a whole bunch of technology and if one of the websites use reacts This would by using that This would be this lessons would be so viral that your whole company as it is You wouldn't be able to sue Facebook for whatever reason. So Clearly that's not free and open source software. I think the intention was I Think it was fair, but By making it so viral like that, I think it's It was not good And of course open core is not open source Perhaps the core is but it's kind of a bait and switch. So we provide this software for you and this open core is Open it's free, but if you want something else something more you have to pay and Usually they have some features that are Essential like security you have to have a secure software for To be available Over the over the web So I'll give you an example elastic is one of those companies So if you want security in elastic elastic search You will have to pay an extra that wasn't part of open core And this has caused a lot of problems because people were having some some elastic software that were open to everyone and People could steal information very private information. So that that's a challenge if you're going to use open core as a as a Strategy at least have security as a as a default I would say because otherwise it would be a net a net I believe And so I want you I'm not sure how many minutes we have here. I Wanted to briefly talk about our anniversary. So last year we celebrated our 20th anniversary And so Chris is here. He was part of the celebration of the 20 years and We participated in several events over four over a hundred activities across 40 events worldwide So we were part of Fosden with the keynotes in Australia California campus party here in Brazil, Fos-Asia So We have France. We have several places if you go to the next slide, please We were also part of the Oscar was celebrating their 20 years there and We were celebrating we decided to celebrate not just our anniversary, but other projects anniversary so we participated with the The new projects was 35 years Let me see if I remember the Mozilla was 20 years as well celebrating The Devin project as as I mentioned to you was celebrating their 25th anniversary the Free best deal was celebrating Their 25th anniversary. So we worked together with all those projects to celebrate their anniversaries as well and So this is My boss Patrick. He was at campus party. I invited him to to participate there To talk about the the next 20 years of open source So that's our mission at the OSI to protect the open source definition That has served the whole community really well The Devin community is key to this because you you guys were part of this since the very beginning and So we really appreciate your help on this regard and with that I open to questions if you guys have Does anybody has a question? Or if anybody wants to share a bit of history if you guys were part of the Devin community and you guys discussed about The importance of free software and open source. Please go ahead Hi, so my question is about the occasional appearance of a license that claims to be open source definition compatible and isn't When this happens and you you hear about this What is what exactly is the OSI as a response to the company and to the public if that's different? Yeah, they're a game plan every time Yeah, so Chris, don't you think that? Do you have any There's no specific Do you have an example in mind like a concrete example? You can pick any of the recent ones if there's a Story to tell like I guess but I'm sort of just wondering does does nothing happen? Do people just talk about it on Twitter or does does OSI? Have some sort of do you see that there's an active role to play when this sort of thing occurs and Steps of some kind are taken talking to people Yeah, we certainly take an active role Hopefully we do more than just post on Twitter the I Guess we don't have a concrete game plan because I thought a One-size-fits-all just wouldn't work and it wouldn't be effective. There's often different motivations and different Issues that need to be foregrounded in each case like what if you know one licenses is Particularly pushing this angle and one license particularly pushing that angle having a generic approach would really work So we don't have a playbook for pushing back against this new style of license if I can put it very flatteringly towards them So yeah, yeah but I mean We hopefully should be fairly active and noisy about these new licenses and things like that I'm getting from your question that you aren't necessarily seeing that that's not coming up on your radars and your particular Filter bubbles. Let's put it that way I guess I was just wanting to know if there's a We always talk to the company and ask them to change it if there's always a we make it very clear that you're not open source and When people ask I I do know Patrick from events and things so I've heard some Story every every now and then from him on the subject. I guess maybe it doesn't seem like It doesn't seem like I frequently hear about OSI taking action or something so I guess that was the question It might help to make a distinction between Cases where people are sort of accidentally using open source because they sort of think it sounds good And they attach it to their product names and we do have a game plan for perhaps those more routine Like oh, yeah, by the way, this is a this is a thing by the way you probably don't want to Yeah Those ones but your question was more about the the bigger licensing changes and things like that. So yeah As I say that just to repeat myself there. We don't necessarily have a concrete game plan for addressing those Luckily, they haven't been too many. They've been big and they're problematic but yeah, yeah Yeah, perhaps expanding on them There's a lot of discussion. We have a mailing list which discuss this and Everyone every company or individual that proposes a lessons We we try to discuss this and to see if that lessons Or if them those changes if they are compatible with the with the free software definition and with the open source definition Of course, we're hoping to Look if we want to change the open source definition if there's a community consensus around around changing some things That could work, but that's very difficult because the open source definition has been working for so long and it's Not just 20 years This is a Not just the 35 years from the free software as well. This has been going on for for a very long time so that Discussion on the mailing list we try to analyze this and if it's indeed if it fits And it's compatible with the free software definition and the open source definition Then that lessons they they can be approved by the OSI But of course those OSI doesn't want proliferation of a lot of lessons. So we try to restrict that as well So Nick you talked a lot about the history of OSI And then we kind of touched on how like some of these License ideas are coming up and that there isn't necessarily something in place right now Can you tell us like what OSI is looking at doing in the next year or so? Like as far as future activities since we covered a lot of the historical activities Yeah, so Chris would you would you like to take that and then I respond later? Since first of all, I'm not part of the the board the boards perhaps Yeah, perhaps Chris can have a better insight on that and I can talk about it as well I'm in terms of plan for the upcoming year, but are you referring only to the new breed of licenses Certainly we want to do a lot more outreach and sort of a lot more publicity. I mean people If people aren't seeing there is of course the license Discussing the license review mailing lists, but they're pretty closed and they're pretty active and so you can't really follow along so Perhaps a bit more media What would you call it? Blanking on the word just a lot more Publicity like longer blog posts position pieces things like that that's certainly on our radar for the next year I think that will help Not get ahead of the conversation, but that kind of thing In terms of I mean we can't stop people writing a license and then the licensing rights but Yeah I'd be curious if you had any thing in mind. I mean always willing to listen. I Do think that there is like a place for a more proactive take on that we For disclosure, I'm at the Conservancy and we often do opinion pieces not only in licenses but sometimes on business models and other trends in the Free software community slash open source business sector and so yeah, I mean and it Seems a natural thing for OSI to focus on the license things as they come up Because sort of tagging on anything was Noticing I think is that for many people that are maybe don't follow a handful of board members from OSI It does seem like the large portion the conversation is sort of the peanut gallery on Twitter and so there's a it just seems like there's a big opportunity there Yeah, and we'd be lying if we didn't Look at say the proactive stuff that the Conservancy does in sort of ethical areas Or manner of them not just the business model and stuff, you know privacy and etc. Etc. All things user-free and it We look at that and be like yeah, we should certainly if we move more towards a proactive Angle in that it's least in terms of messaging that would be certainly good instead of perhaps coming across as being fairly reactive It's a little bit misleading because the list is the license discuss and license review lists are Quite up there, but there's I can't expect you to read those I can't expect the random peanut gallery on Twitter to read them They're quite high volume. So and fairly often the conversation is quite niche and nuanced bunch of lawyers so Yeah being a bit more proactive and a bit more I Can't find the words today mainstream. That's wrong. That's awful words, you know, perhaps get what I mean there Yeah, yeah, and this year starting this year Especially going forward. We're investing a lot in education. So recently we announced a partnership with brandies and soon with the Cardinal University and also Berkeley, I believe About work working together to promote courses for open source programs a lot of companies They have their own open source programs and so we want to add help educate those people and We're working together with the to-do group the Linux Foundation and other companies and also affiliates to promote that and To promote those courses and so to go about the history about the lessons go into the detail Why it's important to respect respect freedom and open open source Why it's important to Focus on a few lessons and not let proliferate a lot of lessons One of the key tickle takeaways is that if you're a company and every every time there is a new lessons You're just going to spend more on lawyers to try to analyze those lessons to see if it's compatible and if you're You're for if you're complying with that. So companies are realizing that's important to to keep the number of lessons Restricting so that it doesn't cause confusion. Yeah, so I guess that's the time that we have I really appreciate You guys coming here and thank you the Devin community as well for working with the OSI And with all the open source communities and protecting free software and open source So, thank you guys