 Okay, well, we're going to get started. Could somebody in the back please close that door, please, so we have more quiet. Thank you. I am working to get my one slide up so that I can have the names of the panelists in front of you here. Today we're going to have a panel on European legal entities for free software projects. A lot has been happening in this space and particularly in this past year. And so what we'd like to do is give you an opportunity to meet some new organizations and hear from them. What I propose we do is give each panelist just a five minute introduction or a brief introduction to their organization. I'll ask one or two questions and then we'll open it up to the audience for questions. Oh, well, finally I have my slide with the names on it. In fact, is this the one that... there. I don't know if that... is that too dark? If I do... Okay, well, let's... that way you can at least see things. First of all, Simon Phipps. Thank you, Tom. So hello, good afternoon and welcome from all of us. So I'm up first because I managed to get to the starting line first out of the three at this end of the panel here. Over the last few years it's become increasingly obvious that it's important to have organizations who will look after the administrative and legal duties of growing communities of free and open source software. And so we've seen a growth of demand from organizations that do this organization like the Software Freedom Conservancy organizations like Apache Fit Software Foundation. And there seems to be an infinite amount of demand. And I realized about two years ago that all of the organizations that did general purpose fiduciary hosting were based in America. And as somebody who's also involved in digital civil liberties, that alarmed me because I felt that I don't necessarily want all of the assets of projects I'm working on to be under U.S. law. Because you never know what might happen in the United States. Thank you, Simon. I was going to make a comment about Brexit, but I just... So I'm coming on to that. So I started throwing the idea around talking about there being a European fiduciary host. Now by fiduciary, fiduciary is an English word that means to do with good faith. And so fiduciary hosting means looking after all the things that are done in good faith to meet legal and good governance requirements. And so I started thinking about how one would create a fiduciary host in the U.K. I did some research, I found out in the U.K. about the thing called a community interest company, which is a not-for-profit but not charity organization. And I decided I would start a fiduciary umbrella in the U.K. to serve Europe. At the same time as I was doing this, Moritz was doing the same thing, and Mikiel was doing the same thing. We all know each other. We'd forgotten to mention it to each other. And so we've all three gone ahead and created organizations. They are quite different from each other in character. So public software is a term that I didn't actually coin it. I've not found out who coined the term public software. Public software is a term to avoid the need to decide whether you're going to say open source or free software. And it means software that has got the software freedom included inside it. And so software freedom is the baseline of what public software does. We are a community interest company. That means that we are able to engage in trading and commercial activity. But we are not allowed to use the proceeds of that commercial activity for anything other than the service of the public community we've declared we will serve. And the public community we've declared we will serve is those people who are the users and creators of public software. And so we have the same constraints on us as would be on a charity, but we don't have the ability to recover tax benefits. And that's probably the largest difference between us and everybody else. I don't really believe that matters because I've tried making donations across Europe to other organizations. And the cost of recovering the tax, getting the tax benefit has always been larger than the tax benefit. Because the process that you have to engage in is always a heavy bureaucratic process. So while in Europe we do have an environment where theoretically you can make tax deductible donations across borders, in reality for most country pairs that is not practical. And because of that I believe that the recovery of tax benefit is a very marginal benefit for an organization providing fiduciary hosting in Europe. Now when larger sums of money are involved such as the ones that Moritz is working with, I think there is a case to be made about getting tax deductible donations. So public software started in February last year. We have one project working with us now, a project called Travel Spirit. Travel Spirit is a community of quite diverse community of individuals and companies working on mobility as a service software. That's the idea of creating open source frameworks for running things like Uber at a city level, probably through a public transit authority rather than through a predatory private corporation. And so that project is going fairly well. It's been going for nearly a year now and is doing okay. So public software, now we're based in the UK and I hadn't anticipated there would be any problem with being based in the UK for a European organization. And then you know how bad things can happen to countries sometimes. Well unfortunately we have very, very gentlemanly and refined fascists in the UK and they've managed to persuade the country to vote to be unfriendly to the rest of Europe. And so that complicates public software and our queue of people wanting to join has become much reduced, we've discovered. That's all very much to the advantage of the gentleman over to my right. Who was next? I think you were next, weren't you? Alright, time-wise. I'll make you I was next. Oh, you were next. So am I audible? So I come from a Simon is a well-known open source VIP. I come from a far lesser known region. I work for a small charity called NLNet Foundation. We, 20 years ago, actually 30 years ago, NLNet sort of came into life by a group of UNIX engineers that announced the EU net and NLNet was a Dutch part of that. It grew, it grew, it grew. Ten years later, seven years later that became a separate foundation. It was sort of a network for a grassroots network across Europe that grew into basically European internet in 1997. Everything was sold and all the money went into a trust fund and that's where the story starts because we started giving out money to all these projects, hundreds of projects that are doing all kinds of cool open source stuff. And over the years, we just watched people suffer and suffer. And we met many people that wanted to do stuff about it. We saw, I mean, we worked with many people in the field and as time grew, we wanted to find a solution to the problem that when you get a bunch of really good engineers and they create something cool and then they become so successful that you send them to lawyers. And that is just a very painful thing for them to live through and then you give them money and they have to get a community to build a community. By the way, it's interesting is that we're programmed against the community track. I think I feel more at home in the community track than in the legal track because I'm not a lawyer, but this is for us, this is how we build communities. And so the idea was, let's take the whole burden out of, the whole pressure out of getting organized because we are, as an element, we are a charity. We can receive money, we can pay money. There's a huge tax benefit to being paid by a charity, at least in some countries. There's no income tax on that, so you get a pretty nice, in some countries half of your wages sort of become tax free. That's a pretty attractive benefit. But as a charity, we're a professional manager of funds. People can give us money and we can professionally manage those. There's oversight. And we've seen so many small foundations where a couple of willing people are able to do this, sustain this for a couple of years. But the 75 years of copyright after the death of the last remaining code author is nowhere near to be seen in any of the foundations that we see. So we thought, why don't we create a vehicle to end all vehicles? So we named our project, our funny name is Hypervisor for Free Software Foundations. So what we do is we give people sort of their own environment. But instead of putting the money into that environment, we ask people to just like a squirrel, put out the nuts everywhere they can. For instance, at the NLNET Foundation or any other place. And all that we do, we're a legal draw box in a way. People can put their code under copyrights and their assets in a safe place, knowing that it is community governed and that it will always be that way. So there's a zero, we cannot make profits because we actually promise to not have a single euro ever in our foundation. So we are completely separate, ethereal, only intangible assets and our dream is to completely automate things so that people can just put safe stuff inside our foundation, have programs that manage these so that the virtual organizations can exist and there's a mechanism for people to sort of decide on creating yet another license on top of their code or changing names or forking or whatever. But there's no reason for them to go and spend a lot of money, do three-monthly tax payments, even though there's no money inside, you still have to file these things. So basically, our idea is to simplify and automate it. And we've gone for a very promiscuous model where we don't impose stuff because anybody, it's just like getting children. Anybody can get a child and anybody can start a foundation. Anybody will do what they want. So we're not going to sit on anybody's chair and make them do anything. We will just hand them best practices. We feel our best practice and they can sort of ask us for rational, sane templates of doing things. And those are then, just like virtual machines, you can create virtual organizations, any shape, flavor, model that you want. Yeah, I think that's enough for now and we'll get to the real needs maybe later. Okay. Moritz? Hello, I'm Moritz. I was active in the kind of free software space, mostly in the internet, what's the so-called internet freedom space. In 2013, I joined a foundation called the Renewable Freedom Foundation. It's a charity in Germany. And the mission of the Renewable Freedom Foundation is to strengthen and defend civil liberties in the digital space. So I began in 2013 together with people at the foundation to come up with a concept of what the foundation would actually be doing. It was set up in 2012 by a Bavarian newspaper publisher. So he set aside some of the money that he's been making. We're not officially affiliated with the newspaper. We are sort of affiliated with the founder, the current publisher, the publisher of that newspaper. And in 2014, I took the guy who was back then running the foundation to roughly 40 events to introduce him to many projects, different communities in the space of open data, new journalism, kind of whistleblowing, and of course the whole space of technology that I was familiar with. Over time, the foundation was meant to give out funds, so quite similar to an LNET, but on a smaller scale. And we kind of positioned ourselves as an intermediary. So what I noticed very quickly that there's a lot of funding potentially flooding into the internet freedom space and that it can be quite damaging. If you don't handle it the right way, if you're naive and you take that money, you're going to end up with a broken project and a broken community. So my stance always was that we have to address this. A lot of people and a lot of projects that I talked to, they want money. They want to grow and think that money can be an enabler for that. I am very skeptical about money in the space of these very enthusiasm-driven efforts in the human rights space. But of course, there's a valid point in saying that you have to have something to eat. You have to have some kind of stability in your life that you can continue doing what you want to do. So in being a funder, you can interact with other foundations that do grants. And I helped people write their grant applications and I was able to kind of explore the space of potential funders that fund with a human rights angle. So I participated in a lot of human rights conferences where the digital does not play a big role, not as big as it will become in that space because of all the stuff that is happening there with targeted malware attacks against activists, journalists, surveillance and all these topics. And I built bridges between a lot of different communities. And so most of what I do is just listen to whether people are, what their problems are, and to see who I can point them to or how I can help them with their current efforts. And at the same time, since we've been handing out a bit of money, the problem for that problem when you have money is how to make sure the team understands how they will do things. Sometimes it's very organically that the founder of a project will start a foundation or some legal entity or he already has a for-profit that he starts using. And there's never the point where you make very conscious decisions about who is in control of the assets of the projects and who is in control of the financial assets. And I think the major benefit that I see for a fiduciary sponsor is that the moment you join a fiduciary sponsor, there's certain things where you should make clear agreements. And this is the point of realization within the community around the project of what their needs are and how to protect those needs and the communities. And that led me to, I can host some things at the foundation, but it's not that straightforward. So we have been hosting a couple of bank accounts for some projects to hold some of the funding. And in March we started creating, developing this center for the cultivation of technology. We registered in October, so it's a really recent development. We are now organizationally ready in the legal sense to be active. Our legal form is based in Germany with the company. The company is fully owned by the foundation, which is a charity. But the company itself is also a charity. But it's a limited liability company. It's a GMBH in Germany with the charity status. So it's a meinutsige GmbH. It can do for-profit activities. So when projects want to engage in minor for-profit activities that's possible. And I'm mostly focusing on projects in a stage where they've been successful. They are around. They have a sort of community, maybe the community of one developer that is fairly common. And they need a legal entity for some specific thing, like a grant that is being offered. Or people coming, they want to donate, they want to contribute 10 euros. The project is not going to actually benefit from the 10 euros that much. But if there's some bank account somewhere where there's little complexity, they can fill it up and use it for hackathons or for a bit of travel. So very light involvement. And on the other hand, all the projects in the internet freedom space where there is this NGOization. There is this movement to getting funding. And actually the first project that I didn't even like had on a mental map. The first project that we're taking on is a European Commission funded consortium. And we are one of the partner organizations in that consortium. And I think that's a very good example because they expect to be a limited liability company. They want usually consortia to exist of like university partners and some for-profits. And the traditional for-profits that are part of these research efforts usually file patents, do some proprietary stuff that never sees the light of day because it's just to get the money out of the European Commission funding flow. And we fill the need there because we will be responsible for a work package that integrates the research into open source and into an existing open source application. So my focus, I think, is very much complementary. I think it's perfect that you exist and you try. Let's talk about comparisons afterwards. Just one last point is that we want to get the financial stuff right. We want to make it easy that people can see how much money they have in their accounts, do some budgeting, bookkeeping, make it very easy to interface, give us receipts, and invent something that is scalable across many projects and that can be used in various different entities to handle the management of 50 projects or whatever in a non-profit environment. So that's our focus and we need the work that Michele is doing at the Commons Conservancy because he's detailing out all the decisions that the projects have to make before they reach the point where they can come to us and say, okay, give us a bank account. Okay, I think I'm going to troll this panel a little bit. Okay, so hi, I'm Karen Sandler. I'm the Executive Director of the Software Freedom Conservancy. In some ways we are the oldest and newest organization on this panel because we are a U.S.-based organization in being the Software Freedom Conservancy, but we're also ramping up a Conservancy France. So Software Freedom Conservancy as the U.S. organization has been around for a while and has been active in Europe and the U.K. for quite a while and we've held assets in Europe and done quite a number of things in Europe and of course the participants of our projects are global. And I totally agree with what's been said before that there's so much room for a lot of different organizations, but I think my biggest troll of this panel is to say that I'm so glad that we've made it look so exciting and fun that everybody else wants to do it too. And I would say that these problems are hard and many of the things that you're hearing are true of our organization too. We are the home of over 40 free and open source software projects including Git, Samba, Wine, Inkscape, Selenium, PHP, my admin. The list goes on, Brune Network Security Monitor. I'm always told by my colleague Bradley that I should not try to list them because then I'll just keep going and it's hard to choose. We're also the home of RHE which is a diversity program for women and other underrepresented people in free and open source software and participants are global. There is one round. We do about like 90 interns per year who come through our program and there was at least one round where there was one intern from each habitable continent. So a truly global program. And we also are known for being one of our member projects is the Coalition of Colonel Developers that asked us to enforce their copyrights and we have funded the lawsuit of Christa Helwig in Germany against VMware. So as you can see we are active globally and the way it works with Conservancy is that when a project applies to Conservancy they become a part of our organization. We are their nonprofit identity. They are analogous to a division of a corporation and part of that onboarding process is some of the virtualization ideas of organization. So when organizations, when we put off our projects and communities join us we help them figure out how their governance exists and instead of having to form their own organization they form a virtual organization within us where they don't need to file a particular form of organization with three members on the board or whatever the particular laws are and instead they can run the project with however it works for them and within our member projects that's totally different from project to project. Some projects have big communities where they run elections and some of our projects just have a small committee of five people or three people who always make their decisions by consensus and we basically can tailor it project by project so that's really really handy. We also, I guess the bad news for everybody here and I think everybody here already knows it is really tough work and not very... I hate using the word sexy but... It's not glamorous at all, thank you. It's hard work, it's thankless work and it's very hard to fund and I would be remiss if I didn't mention that we have a match donation now and so if you donate to Conservancy just for this week it's matched so it counts a few times, I'm so sorry. But we need to fundraise from the public in order to subsidize the work that we do for our projects but we take in money in a number of different ways from sources all over the world so we have some grant funding that we take in individual donations also around the world. We're looking at wrapping up Conservancy France because there's some flexibility for handling... There's not a lot of things that we found that we wanted to do that we couldn't do with our own organization but we just have a few things that will be a little bit easier. One of the main things that we're doing is creating a system for tracking assets and accounting that will create a free and open source software solution that everyone can use and this is a challenge that a lot of free and open source software organizations have experienced in this space that the mass of transactions is just huge because one of the things that free software projects want to use these entities for are sending people to conferences and each person that goes to a conference has all these receipts and they have receipts for their flight and receipts for their hotel, you have to track each one and you have to make sure that everything is handled properly not just for whatever rules you might have to follow depending on your jurisdiction but also to make sure that we have decent governance, transparency and make sure that the funds are being used properly so it's just incredibly hard work and we've been focusing our entire operations around making this in a solvable way that is transportable for everyone. That actually leads into my question for the panel. I just said I'm only going to ask one question and then we'll open it up to the audience just because time is getting kind of short. So I'll just ask each of the panelists this question what checks and balances do you have in place so that we can trust you with our assets both tangible and intangible? How would we avoid repeating history of like let's say the Tox Foundation, X-Walg or openoffice.org? Kick to you. Yes. Those are all very different disasters you mentioned there. So, public software, we are a limited liability company and we have to maintain accounts like any other limited liability company and we additionally have to file an annual report with the Commissioner of Community Interest Companies in the UK where we demonstrate that we are continuing to serve our declared community. On top of that, we have one project and it has quite a low transaction rate because it isn't generally sending people to conferences at the moment. So at the moment we have an open ledger that anyone in the project can see and that is available for all of the participants not just the formal participants who signed the contract but any of the project participants to look at and they can see exactly what assets we hold. We hold all their domain names and their trademarks for them and they're in the register and then we also hold all of their funds and we identify all of the deductions that have taken place from their funding. So that is all transparent. I would say that the main check is that transparency and the main balance is the fact that we have a public duty which is inspected by the government. So at NLNet we've been running this same thing internally for about 20 years so we give away money to people and they ask for it and they ask for it in small chunks and so people have been sending us receipts over and over again and so this is something that we have a person handling professionally all the time. Every decision that is made is made through a specific process where all the whole governance body is notified so if somebody sends in a receipt then that would be a decision that everybody knows of so that's an internal mailing list for each project. Wow, so what is the volume of that? We're just starting so we're not sending lots of people out on trips as well and it would just be for each program so not for every program to receive all the traffic from other programs but just from the five people three people working inside a project so it's just an open book. Our guarantee is that we focus more on the larger say you want to do some somebody has to build some really boring testing infrastructure and he has to be working on this for six months and the community decides to pay up for that particular bit they apply for a grant with us and then the whole process is handled like it would be a normal grant so we do all the checks and balances for the project to make sure that it's stable and then the project is called saying this is what we've arranged with that person or that company or whatever so yeah first the professional management is really important and as regards to the assets basically everything that's donated to us is sent through again to this decision mailing so incoming traffic is just there's an oversight and there's a stack of things so that you can just always look at the right only mechanism all our legislation and so on it's like a not a blockchain but a blockchain like idea where we can only tack on new versions of new things so yeah I mean in the like Simon said these cases that you mentioned had a lot of different circumstances and different reasons but I think there's things to say about transparency in many different angles as well and I think the transparency is mostly something that the project community should decide what kind of level of transparency they want within a guiding framework that helps them to make useful good decisions that avoid conflict in the future and I think all these examples are more a problem of bad governance models or bad adoption of structures within those communities rather than a question of transparency in these cases that you mentioned transparency wasn't the issue and I mean we are a limited liability company in Germany there's some filing public filings that you have to do as a limited liability company there's public filings in the sense of the charity status so you have to file an annual report and the difficulty we have is that the stuff will happen in German the interactions with the government entities will happen in German and we will make some effort to translate that so an annual report will be published in English that is very near to the requirements of the German government and I've been suggesting that we use the Form 990 that is used in the US as a template of something that we don't file anywhere because we're not under the jurisdiction but I think for anyone who is familiar with the 501c3s can then look at because basically the numbers and the details and the narratives in the 990 are close to what we have to file anyway so why not use the form and produce something that is very similar to that so that's the minor thing about transparency in some sense but I don't want to speak for the projects that use us for example the European Commission funding there is SAP in the consortium they have some known disclosure stuff happening they do some proprietary stuff that we're not even concerned about so we will have to find the right balance there cut out the stuff that but that's kind of the decision in the consortium and the decision that we have to make as far how far do we want to go but we're not there yet so I cannot really comment much on that I have to say that's so exciting that I'm so surprised and excited to hear that you're thinking of using 990 as a template for information elsewhere because we've been working on nonprofit accounting towards having just the accounting system generate the 990 so if that's useful in other places that's even better there's like simple manipulation of assets that you can script so it should be easy to make the form 990 not something that takes weeks and weeks so we're working towards that for us as far as oversight and assurance that we're doing what we should be doing we have multiple levels of that we have an evaluations committee that evaluates that projects that come into conservancy are a good fit for conservancy and they meet our standards then we have an intake process where each project is helped with their governance and like Moritz was saying we tailor all of these things for the projects they may decide to do different things but they all have to meet a certain standard and we have to be sure that there's not going to be any undue influence by any one company or of control that we wouldn't be comfortable with in a free software project we have a board of directors which oversees all of our work and we have a charitable mission that we have to be accountable for having an organization like one of ours participate with the free software project means that there's a kind of an outside party which means that when there are kind of like inappropriate things suggested people tend to be a little more sheepish and there's a third party that somebody can contact whistleblower can sort of say hey you should look into that transaction because they feel uncomfortable and it's no problem at the same time when you have problems that happen in some of the examples that you mentioned where you have like we don't have to worry as much about not filing things or getting things in on time because we're doing it in a consolidated way so all of that stuff seems to really help okay well that's really great we have about five minutes for questions so does anyone from the audience have a question for the panel well hello my name is Reiner Mutz and I'm the first elected president of World Privacy and Identity Association I have a question to Moritz we are located in Graz in Austria and we just associated and what we want to do is we want to set up a trusted service provider which means that we will deploy certificates for free we felt that we need organizations to operate successfully one is our association one is an incorporated company and the other one is a cooperative all three are owned by our association and my question to you is will you support us or can you support us to start so the backstory in 2011 I started a nonprofit and that grew into a network of nonprofits which are 20 organizations in 14 countries and that's how I became quite familiar with the different structures the different nonprofit laws different charity approaches and that unfortunately that it spread that I knew about these things so many people have been coming to me since then to help them create organizational structures look into the bylaw stuff and things like that and the rest we should take that offline but like the I think an important point here for me for me legal entities are tools and they shouldn't become something for me you're creating a living organization and it wants to eat and it wants to grow and anytime you create a legal entity you need to be careful to not turn it around that you become a tool of the legal entity but that the tools stay within and to use them properly so the tools that are available to me that are like nonprofit associations a company foundation and things like that so I generate more flexibility to help others so happy to take this offline one more thing which you when you said that you need to make sure that the organization is the tool one of the things that conservancy does on that front is that we have very strong termination provisions so our projects can leave easily and we've helped many of our projects to leave either to form their own organization or to do something else and I think that that's a really important part of transparency but it's a really important part of fighting the right governance structure to add on that is not just leaving it's also splitting apart because I think there's a gilded cage where you're in we're in a foundation there's some money there there's some assets there and the guy that leaves is the guy that has nothing or the girl that leaves so people tend to fight over assets and we've designed a lot of ways to spend a lot of time in designing procedures to basically also fork an organization so that you can just have separate ways so that each and everyone can just continue to do what they're good at rather than to fight for either all or nothing so it was a comment that Mikael made about people who sign which leads to this question which is to me I was sort of intrigued by the ambiguous nature we talk so about projects but in reality there are people and so how do you decide how do you identify who has authority to speak for the project and I think Karen when you say governance like eventually you force them to that point but sort of how do you manage even are the people I'm talking to the right people and is there somebody else who should be included in this conversation and what kind of legal commitments or who can make the commitment and what kind of commitments can they make so for us we've put this into lists so everything is handled by lists so at intake we have a quartermaster that appoints somebody appoints a group of people to be the governing body and whatever they call it it doesn't matter but it's a mailing list and we only accept messages that are CC to the mailing list so when there's a contest within we recommend 48 hours but it can be longer there's a contest of any decision that goes over that list it becomes it becomes something that has to be redone if there's no contest we can take action so when organisations join public software they sign a service agreement with us and the entity that is signing that agreement is an unincorporated association in UK law which is the form that's used for things like Cub Scout troops and to identify that unincorporated association we name individuals who are considered to be that association in the legal agreement and we make clear in the legal agreement who is entitled to speak for that group of people on what topics and then we only accept instructions from the named individual or individuals who are named in that agreement to take the tasks so for travel spirit there is one individual who has to agree no matter who asks to dispense an asset that named individual has to be copied and has to agree and they have made a commitment in our service agreement that they will consult the other named parties on the document so we do it by explicitly naming an authoriser and by explicitly making that authoriser responsible for getting consensus from the other parties US law comes from UK law so we have a very similar approach we have an agreement and the template templates for many of our agreements we try to be flexible so you can look on our website and see an example of it and we also name the individuals that come in and the agreement establishes a governance procedure so those were the initial people and then there is a more legal effectuating body that transfers but there is still this question Pam is getting at how do you know you have the right people how do you know the original names we struggled with a lot we take the project whoever approaches us at face value and explore the community we read the mailing list we check to make sure that the people who are talking to us are in fact involved with the project but then we take it a step further and we post messages on every possible place that we can think of that are like authoritative places where these people are participating and say this agreement is being signed these are the people that are being identified if you have any questions or object please review all the stuff please let us know and so we are very confident in the end and then similarly we have a representative that is identified who can speak and then we know the committee or whatever governance body that will identify that new person going forward one last question you previously mentioned the issue about tax exemption do you think that do you provide or don't provide some kind of tool to provide tax exemption within European countries that would be a great tool to accelerate involvement for business which work with open source make profit with open source tax exemption would be a great way to get involved but do it exist as Italian business may donate some money to some kind of association foundation and get back some exception so we aren't aware of any mechanism that is devoted to public software at the moment and we've talked about setting up for example reciprocal arrangements where somebody British could donate to public software and Moritz would then pay money out in Germany and deduct tax there are actually already charitable organisations across Europe that do tax deductible exchanges across Europe but they're typically set up for large donations so the costs for example in the UK there is an organisation that handles charitable giving on payrolls so if your company offers to make a charitable donation on your behalf as a salary deduction they will then put the money into the hands of the charity that's involved and the fees that they charge for that are scaled to the amount of money that they think they're going to be transferring and they are beyond the means of most small donations for individuals they're suitable for trusts that are making grants so it would be feasible for Moritz to make a grant a tax deductible grant into the UK of 3,000 euros but it wouldn't be feasible for me to pay my FSFE Fellows fee in Germany because I actually tried doing it and I found the fees that I got charged were actually more than the FSFE Fellow fee so I haven't done it again I'm going to have to thank everyone very much for our panel thank our panelists please