 So we have the Linaro Connect, and who are you? I'm Jolaine Lovejoy, and I am an open source attorney, worked in various companies, and also on quite a few community projects, including the Software Package Data Exchange, also known as SPDX, and the Open Chain Project, two things I have been involved with a long time and recently as well. So what does it mean to be a lawyer with the open source community? Well, I think most lawyers in this space have a lot of background in intellectual property law, in particular copyright, as well as broader knowledge about software and licensing aspects of software as the foundational knowledge. And then everything in open source licensing builds upon that. It's usually a lot of working with developers and engineers, which I always enjoy. And understanding the community, I think, is also a really, really important thing, because you can't just look at the legal risks in a pure way you might in some other legal areas. You really need to know the bigger context and how the community works in that background. So Linaro is doing lots of open, everything is open source. So there's laws with that and stuff? Well, yeah, open source is open source. Open source licenses enable the collaboration that we see in open source space. So you have a copyright license that gives back all those rights that enables you to share and modify and redistribute the code. So understanding that and how that interplays with other open source licenses or even proprietary licenses and making sure that all works together, as well as there also can be aspects of setting up open source projects in terms of governance and that structure. And kind of like setting up a small business, but with a lot of different rules. So there's a lot of different things. So does I mean all these guys and women around here have to think about it all the time? Because it's interesting, Linaro, I've been doing videos for a few years and there's all these companies that contribute assignees and then contribute money and they hire people to work on free open source software. Right. And it just kind of works out? Yes, there's a few more layers than that in order to make it work out, which can range from the agreements that those companies have with Linaro in terms of the assignees, the engineers that work on the code and then is also just the way Linaro is structured and then the licenses for the projects. But I don't think that the engineers are thinking about the open source licenses all the time or at least I would hope not because that wouldn't be a good use of their time. So what would be the collaboration? How do you fit in and work with them or with companies? As a lawyer? I mean, I think it can range from what you would traditionally think a lawyer does in terms of assessing risk and keeping the company within the bounds of the law whatever part of the law that is, helping identify the more specific aspects of engaging in the open source community where that interplay is with the law. And then it can be not just sort of strictly legal, if you will, in terms of understanding that, how that there's sort of more legal questions or the licensing questions that intersect with the actual how stuff gets done and how the community operates. So are there lots of things happening in terms of the law around open source? The law itself, I think, usually changes quite slowly. But there's always new things happening. And so it depends on what you mean by what's happening in the law. There's always kind of litigation and lawsuit activities. One thing you might think of that can change things. You also may just see people coming out with new licenses or new ways to license things and whether or not. Or even sometimes we see new open source licenses. So there's changes in that and maybe changes in how projects are structured that we can cut across some touch upon legal aspects. And so there's like new precedents happening, right? Some new cases that get resolved and the precedents become law, kind of, right? Sometimes, yeah. I mean, that's a rather slow, like I said, it's a rather slow process. And there's so many different countries. So the EU is different from the Brexit in the UK and is different from the US. We've sort of globally agreed upon some common foundational rules, if you will, and especially when it comes to copyright. There are variations from each jurisdiction, but there's also some commonalities that we can rely on as well. Even China? Even China to some extent, yeah. So in your keynote, was there some other things that you were talking about that you can mention? Like it was mostly explaining all that you just said? So now my keynote was more about how lawyers and developers can sort of get along better and work together. So I just sort of had a collection of advice or lessons learned, if you will, from being in this space for a while on how we can be more efficient how we work together. Because lawyers and engineers do have to work together more. I think open source kind of forces that more direct interaction. And sometimes that's sort of challenging for people. And so just trying to kind of share some of my insights of both sides of the coin as well as just how organizations also engage with open source and sort of some of the bigger responsibilities we have on maintaining those sort of social norms that create open source collaboration. I can imagine a lot of these people that work in open source have some kind of fundamental philosophy, life philosophy, that is a little bit anti-copyright and all that stuff. That's why they work in free software a little bit. They are kind of anti-establishment a little bit. Right. Yeah, maybe. You could say that for some people, I think. But that's sort of inside. I think the irony is that, as I said before, open source licenses are built on copyright law. So that's what helps enable that structure around creating collaboration. So for someone to be sort of anti-intellectual property law, it sort of doesn't almost fit with the reality of what's happening now. I mean, I think there's other aspects of law that people may have issues with. But the standard of open source licenses is definitely taking the legal construct and then using it in order to create that sharing. That might be why there is some friction sometimes, right? Between those open source developers and the lawyers, maybe? Because they think, ah, I don't need this or something like that. Well, I don't. I have lots of theories of why there's friction. I think generally people just kind of don't like lawyers. And when lawyers are involved, they think it's a bad thing or it's a scary thing. And that was kind of some of the point of my talk is not looking at it that way, basically. Looking at it from the perspective of how do we sort of help each other and how do we work better together instead of seeing it as a necessary friction, which I don't think there needs to be. Is there a lot of licensing going on from the open source community is trying to adopt technologies that are proprietary to some companies and trying to convince them that they should bring those things over to the open source? Maybe there's some money involved or transactions or contracts. And maybe suddenly they go and say, hey, can we please have this over here in the open source? And then there's discussions going on. I don't. Those kind of conversations, if someone is going to take something proprietary and make it open source is probably a decision up to that company. So you're not going to usually see that. Some companies do that. Some companies make that decision on their own. They say, oh, you know what? This isn't this technology. It'd be more useful if it's more freely available. Like that value exceeds the value of whatever money they may be making off of it. So you see that sometimes happening. But it's usually, you know, that's usually an internal business decision. And then you just see it once it happens. And here at the Narrow Connect, you're going to have some meetings with some of the open source developers. So what are you planning to do? I am only here until tomorrow. So I've been just chatting with people and enjoying my time here and then enjoying Vancouver. And then I head home. Where's that? Boulder, Colorado. All right. Thank you.