 Okay, we have now reached the final talk of the legal and policy issues dev room, which is, yeah I know, it's hard to believe, where did the day go? It's your organizers panel, it's the four of us. The moment you've been waiting for. Yeah, hot topics. Patena, Karen, Bradley and myself. Well maybe hot topics but also potentially feedback on the room and things people would like to see us improve for a future. Sure. Do you want to take it away? Yeah, should we start with that? Great. So, yeah, does anybody have any suggestions on, so let's do a show of hands. Raise your hand if you saw we had a good mix of panels and talks. Okay, so that's like, that's pretty much everybody. Raise your hand if you thought that most of the talks were 25 minutes. Raise your hand if you thought that that was too short. Okay, so like three people, four people raised their hands but like in a shaky. Raise your hand if you think that was just right. That's like three quarters of the room. I'm not going to ask about too long. Does anybody have any suggestions of things that we should do if we do this again? Lightning talks. Oh, and a thumbs up. Raise your hand if you like the idea of lightning talks. Oh, cool. So it's like three quarters of the room. This is great because last year we asked for feedback and we were told that people wanted more than just a day at Fosdame and so we took that feedback and now we have copy left comp on Monday. So if anyone wants to come to that, it's copyleftconf.org on Monday. It's just 15 euro for hobbyists and that'll help cover lunch. So any other suggestions? Oh, you can register at the booth as well. I have a question. How many of you thought about maybe making a proposal for the dev room but saw the CFP was 14,000 pages long and way too long. Was our CFP too complicated? Anybody? Oh. Who thinks the CFP was too long and complicated? Anyone? Okay. Did anybody... Raise your hand if you read the CFP. Okay, three people read the CFP. It was like a quarter of the room. Raise your hand if you found the Easter egg I put in the CFP. Raise your hand if you thought about submitting to the dev room but didn't. Okay, so next year submit. I saw you, Jim. Does anybody else have any ideas, things we should try other than lightning talks? More a comment which I applauded that I'm going but I don't think a copyleft conference really replaces the possibility that would be great for me in particular of having these being wider in FOSDOM. So the comment was that having copyleft CFP doesn't solve the problem that there isn't more legal and policy dev room at FOSDOM. Just because it's not part of FOSDOM or for other reasons. Let's pass the microphone because if you... And so let us know if you're going to talk for more than just a quick minute so that we can get you the microphone because otherwise the recording is really terrible. Oh, I thought he was... Oh, you're on the hook, Jim. I don't know why Tom went up there. So I think there are several reasons that it might change from person to person but coming to FOSDOM is for many people a tradition, for many people is a commitment and extending the visit one day is not very... It's not easy for everyone. And also, copyleft CFP is not a free event which is something that I saw many people complain about. I did not see many people complaining about it because we have specified in lots of places that if the 15 euro that will cover your lunch is too much to let us know and we have volunteering opportunities and we'll work with you. But there are challenges to having more... It's not fully our choice to have only a one-day dev room and we don't want to necessarily conflict with anything else. I have to say a huge shout out to the community room for working with us. We cooperated with them, we coordinated our days and we coordinated our speakers and that's a real advantage. Yeah, and we used to always apply for two days. With the advent of the community dev room there was enough overlap that it made more sense really for us to each apply for one day and we requested the FOSM organizers put us each on different days. That seems to work better. There is the community dev room tomorrow. After going to that, if you still feel the way that you feel that we really should be applying for two days, we're willing to do it. The last time we had two days of this, I'll just be very frank, we got just enough talk submissions to fill the two days. Basically, everybody's accepted that year, which is fine. They were all good talks but it was tight. We're going to have to fill some content here. We aren't sure that there actually is two days of material. Go ahead, Jim. I was just going to halfway jokingly suggest that if you, Bradley, me, and Max can agree on whether something is a derivative work, it's a derivative work dammit and we should just sit down there for an hour and take questions. All right, so submit that as a panel for next year, Jim. I would like to counter the, like, please make it two days again because the legal and policy dev room only being one day gives me a chance to spend the other day doing other stuff and in my experience, the dev room is so good that I want to stay in it the whole day which kind of makes me miss the whole rest of the conference so I really like it being, like, one day good content and also thank you for an awesome dev room. Wow. That's a perfect moment before you go, Remy. So I do this every year and it gets worse every year. Not all organizers up here are equal. Some are better than others. In fact, one is much better than the rest of them and it's not, tell me. It is Tom Marble. He does all the work and we get the credit and every year we promise to do more and we do less. And he does more. And this room would not exist without Tom in the first place because Tom was the first person to ever suggest that we do it after his experience helping co-run the Java dev room and said we should have this. He approached us and convinced us to do it. At that point I had never been to Fosdham. I think maybe you hadn't either. Yeah. And did you? No. So none of us have been to Fosdham and Tom made this happen and then he's been the lead every year doing most of the work. So we have a couple of gifts for you, Tom. They're not fancy but they represent the better things in life from our perspective. Some chocolate and some wine. No, I'm sorry. It's a shirt with wine inside. A shirt with wine? I wrapped it in a shirt. I don't think so. How fancy. And we actually have another box of more fancy chocolates that we left in the hotel rooms but we'll get that later. Goodness. Well, thank you very much. Well, I will say I don't think I would have had the guts to do this without the varied support of all four of us. So I think it's been a great team effort and it is kind of amazing to me that this is our eighth year and eight long years. Okay. But I didn't do all the work. I'd love to take all the credit. But I can't take all the credit. Before it comes to mutual appreciation society, Remy, tell us what you have to say. Thanks again, everybody. Definitely. I really like that the community and the legal dev room are, you know, you're recognizing there's a serious overlap between the audiences. Since legal got the upgraded gigantic room, community did not last year and there was a lot of line where like you couldn't get into the community dev room. So if they are related and it is the same amount of people and we should have this many of a room for this track, maybe we can get a bigger track for community too. I don't know. They actually upgraded us in the last minute. So we have zero influence on it and it's tough. We're really grateful to FOSDEM for organizing such an amazing conference and it's a huge logistics battle for them. So we're grateful for what we get. So I don't have a necessary good answer to this, but a thing that I notice and this happens here in this room and also in my life, I speak to people and I see people speaking and a lot of software people, you know, they go to detail, they're good with abstraction, but they're unfamiliar with a lot of the terminology, a lot of the legal concepts and the talks here vary, obviously, and some of them are at quite, should we say, quite a high legal level. Maybe we could have, I don't know, a glossary on the poster on the wall or we could have like a 101 legal terms or like structure of law and software or something kind of more introductory. Yeah, some are a web page or something. Would it be acceptable if it was written materials that were available and like a URL on the board? Yeah, you could put a URL on the board and then people can go like, what even is that thing and look it up on the laptop? I think it's a great feedback. We did design this dev room. One of the goals we had, when Tom came up with that idea, we said, well, you know, there's so many, you go to any open source and free software conference and you see the legal issues 101 talk. This is what copyrights are. This is what patents are. We do not want that talk in this room. This room is not for the intro, but I agree with you that we don't want to be unwelcoming to people who don't have up to speed. I saw people like, I saw the like stress in the room when Van was saying, exhaustion is exhaustion that people like, tell me what exhaustion is, right? And so I think it would have been a great idea if we had had a web page that had the definition of patent exhaustion so that when Van started, people could have been loading that. And that's a challenge with the 25 minute talks as well. Right. And it makes it difficult to make an interesting talk and think something that's got enough content in it. You don't want to be distracting at the most like intro stuff. Does anybody else have any other feedback? Do we want to talk about some of the... We want to talk about some of the interesting events and... Right. So now that we've done it, we did the feedback first. Do you want our usual, like we decide what was important this year and tell you what we thought about it? Is that what you're after now? We have another. There's a lot of talks. I don't, I'm bad at this. Oh my gosh. There are three tracks of awesome copy left related talks. It is incredible. I can't think of, there's no other place where you will get that content. It's astounding. I'm kind of stressed because I don't know which to choose to go to myself. But that's the whole point. It's going to be awesome. But they will be recorded. Yeah, I don't want to oversell that because just in case, you know, you don't want to be like, it's recorded and then it's, but we're planning to be recording it. The FOSDEM video staff is helping us out. So we have a much higher chance of success than if we were left to our own devices. But so hopefully that'll be that. And that's sort of the goal, is that then we have all that great content about copy left recorded so everyone can experience it at their own pace. But it's not the same if you're not present, in person and flush. So Tom, every year we get up here for the last three. I think this is the third in the row. And we decide and tell them all the big things in policy and legal issues and free software. Well, we don't decide now. We already decided, didn't we? How much time do we have left in this? We have plenty of time. We have plenty of time. We have plenty of time. So, I mean, we did have Lambie's talk, which told us the big thing of this year, which is everybody's writing their own cloud license. Everybody. Yeah, that's interesting. I guess, let's talk about the cloud licensing thing for a second. I have this feeling and it's just a feeling. I'd love to get feedback on this. That some of these actors that are saying, well, the AGPL isn't going far enough, they claim that, you know, the developers of the software aren't getting properly remunerated for their efforts. I think it's kind of disingenuous because I think that what they really want is they want Amazon to pay them for maybe doing something but not necessarily recognizing the giants on whose shoulders they're software is based and ultimately, you know, the developers that were part of it. So, it seems sort of not really straightforward. Is it all really about that? I've been wondering that all year. Is it all about Amazon? Is it everybody just, Amazon takes our stuff and we license freely and doesn't contribute that? I think Amazon is the convenient scapegoat. Obviously, any network services host or could be blamed for this but it seems like it's a fashion trend that it's, what do they call it? Network freeloaders? There are two questions. I'll go with you and then... Yeah, I was just going to say, I mean, there's, I think in some of the cases, the competitive concern is not apparently Amazon but Amazon is the convenient corporate entity that they want to bash. Could you please first explain why non-commercial is non-free? I mean, what harm does it do to the freedom of the users? I mean, just because I have a mic, I'll try to answer that. I don't know if I'm the best person to answer that. I think it's a really good question because I think we tend to assume that there's a right to commercial freedom in free software without, just because it's sort of like a religious kind of belief and I don't think it's really examined much. Calling it freedom zero, right? That's just freedom zero. It's sort of part of freedom zero, right? But you could imagine a version of freedom zero that excluded commercial freedom. I think it's because this culture that free software came out of was, frankly, it was a partially entrepreneurial culture. These were developers who wanted, saw nothing wrong with the general idea of supporting themselves through software development and support of software that they wrote and so forth. But they did see something wrong with the proprietary model, which was a new thing for the software industry, which was very young at the time that free software was emerging. So it was a culture that was already kind of oriented towards, sort of positively towards commercial activity, maybe not large scale commercial activity but small scale. So I don't, why exclude, what is so bad about commercial activity that it should not be protected like all other kinds of endeavors is maybe the question to ask. I think one of the issues that we see, especially in the free culture space, is that the definition of what is commercial and what is not commercial is extremely difficult. And so going into that area creates a lot of question marks and it's quite difficult. So there's a piece of Linux, I just want to finish one point on his question here. There's an interesting piece of Linux history. Most people don't know that Linux was under a non-commercial use only license when it was first released. And the reason that Linus gave when he changed the license relatively early on, was he got sick of being contacted by Lugs who were saying, burnt CDs and they cost like ten dollars US a piece, to recover the money and sell them at the lug, but it's non-commercial use, so what do I do? And he was giving out all these exceptions to each time. So he finally said, well maybe I should actually use a free software license because apparently it took him a while to realize that, and then chose the GPL. So it's a great example of what Karen was saying, where they crossed the line to commercial merely because they wanted to recoup their cost and they couldn't do it with a non-commercial license. So I think that alone is enough to convince me, but I also feel there were a lot of debates that people really thought this through and were like, well, it's really hard to say who's on equal footing with whom. And I always felt that the way non-commercial and commercial activity was treated equally put everybody on equal footing. Read the game manifesto. So just echoing what Tom... The creative commons put together like an analysis of what people considered to be commercial and non-commercial and you can take a look at that, it's fascinating. Just echoing Tom's point about the folks that complain about the GPL for instance not being strong enough. What I see is mostly commercial entities that have adopted free and open source software licenses as a way to reach a certain number of goals but then see that as they grow, this is maybe counterproductive to them to still use free and open source licenses. And I think it's really disingenuous in this sense, which is the one that complained that copy left license do not probably be commercial usage are effectively commercial entities mostly. These are proprietary software companies. Why did copy left licenses come to be used as an instrument, a business kind of tool by proprietary software licenses? That's the sort of question that I think I've been asking myself for a long time and puzzling over. And I think that's kind of one of the strange things about free software legal culture that has really shaped it and over the past year these efforts at writing new, at least in some cases, definitely non-free licenses has kind of exposed that kind of problem again. So Philippe, maybe to interpret what you're saying, maybe they started with Redis, for example, AGPL but then really decided that they wanted to go to a non-free, non-open-source license, but they called it the Commons cause because it sounds nice and you might think it's an open-source license but really it's really just a way of transitioning back to proprietary license. Yeah, big switch, absolutely. Yeah, it's really nothing new though. I mean, I'm sort of glad that it's getting a lot of exposure because it's something that we've been talking about for ages. So I have a much better answer to this question of why do free software licenses need to permit commercial use? And the answer is software freedom is not something that that we, you know, it's not just something that we have to be able to exercise individually, ourselves alone. Software freedom is something we need to be able to exercise collectively. It's a thing that we need to be able to build ecosystems of everybody who has software freedom and everybody is collaborating together to exercise that freedom to give people the freedom that they want. If you have a non-commercial use license then you can't set up a consultancy that will help people solve their problems with that software. You can't distribute that software to people and cover your costs. There's endless things that, you know, in our society, most of our society is a capitalist here. You have to work to live. If you can't cover your costs, you can't live, then you will have to do something else with your life. Now, that's not necessarily a big problem, but it does mean that you will never be able to pay somebody to do the free software thing that you cannot do yourself. And that's just not good enough. Yeah, I think to me, your argument comes down again to what is commercial and what is non-commercial because I could imagine folks saying, well, wouldn't we really enjoy the alternate universe where we make such great software that we can make charitable models around our technology? And, you know, people at charities do get paid. They don't get paid as much as they do in the private sector, but there could be a lot of great results for doing that. But I think that it all keeps coming down to the fact that it's very difficult to draw the lines. crowdfunding. Taryn, do you want to talk about leanness? Leanness? Well, so were we done with the new licenses? I wanted to mention that there was a new one this week. And Van, is Van still here? Oh yeah, so Van is involved with the drafting. And, you know, I read the blog post and it sounds very inspirational, you know, where it's a hollow chain. And so it's very inspirational about humanity's next ascendance. And then you're like, oh, okay, so it's hollow chain. So let's see, who's writing this license? And it's like, oh, it's hollow. The company is hollow and the product is hollow chain. And so it's just another one of those, like, you take the license and then you go to who is, where is it coming from, who wants it, and you look and you have to really dig to figure out what hollow is, and that hollow is a company. And they're hiring, by the way, which, but it was like, that's how I figured out that they were a for-profit company because you had to, like, dig to figure out that they were a charity or foundation or something like that. And so it's just fascinating. So I just sort of want to mention that they're coming up in other contexts, too. What's good about the hollow chain example, though, is that they're specifically state that they'll be doing their process in public and that they're inviting comment. And I think that was missing from these other licenses that were basically just dropped. So now I have to talk about, this is what you're saying. Well, if you want to. I mean, someone else might be of, I mean, it's not that I don't want to, but you can, yeah. So, sorry, we talked a little bit before the organizers panel about whether, I mean, there's this overlap with the community of Devereux that we're talking about here. And I actually think Code of Conduct issues are a policy issue because Code of Conduct is a policy. So I think it's appropriate for our Devereux. Code of Conduct reached a level that was quite disturbing and dangerous for a lot of people because it got to the point where, we're at the point where people who are supporting the idea of a Code of Conduct get death threats attacked online, verbally, those sorts of things. Which is really upsetting. The manner in which Linux projects switched its Code of Conduct, the Code of Conflict to a Code of Conduct was interesting. And I don't know if I want to say more than that yet. Let's see what somebody else has to say. Do you have anything to say on that, Tom? No. Are you going to say everything that you're thinking? Who here heard that Linus Torvalds took a brief step away from the kernel because of Code of Conflict issues? Do people know about a New Yorker article about Linus' behavior? Almost everybody raised their hand to the first, only half the room raised on the second. The third question is, of those of you who know, how many know that they were contemporaneous? So I... I can't even be a victim. That's about a quarter of the room. So I think the interesting thing to me about that from a policy perspective is something that I've actually complained about on this panel two years ago, I think, which is that we don't have very much of a press in free software. While there are some good journalists out there, they are overworked and underpaid, and there aren't that many articles written by independent journalists about things that are happening in open source and free software. That's a problem in the tech industry generally, but I think it's interesting that a very important and I think generally positive change was forced by the press. Because I'm sorry to be a little U.S. biased here, but I believe in a contankerous free press is valuable to the future of democracy and a republic. And therefore I think it's a really good thing that the press was able to pressure that switch and that Linux project actually is being developed right now. But we see very little mainstream press coverage of free software of course, and as you're saying, in the tech press there's really one, I think, one really sort of professional level news organization and really not a whole lot more than that. And one news organization is never a good thing. And so there has to be more than one for there to be real. There's a very interesting thing about this which I don't know if you've thought about and I'll just raise it as a question. Would the events here including Linux's Leave of Absence and the adoption of the code of conduct have happened were there not a relationship between the Linux kernel project and a certain trade organization? If there were the kernel of the 1990s or the much more independent of the commercial corporate interests? It's just something that popped into my head. Well, I think that one of the things we're seeing how do we always end up talking mostly about Linux on this panel? But one of the things that concerns me about Linux is the amount of copyright that is now being held by companies. I think we talked about that last year. And so that's related to your question and one of these situations where a project that was a community project is now mostly a corporate project. Over a long period of time it's slowly shifted to that. And I think that relates to your question. I'm not sure if I have an answer to your question or if I want to answer your question. Given the corporate interest in Linux I have to tell you, I've been astounded that it hadn't happened long ago because the liability alone of the companies that were involved in the kernel was high. I mean, when I would talk about, when I would be asked to do continuing legal education, so like classes for lawyers and people would start asking me about liability points the bad behavior by employees is a, you know something that came high to the list and the exposure of employees to hostile environments also is high on the list. And so I'm amazed that it took so long to get to this point. So maybe someone, did their people raise their hands? Anyone who hadn't contributed yet? Okay, people change their minds. Ian really wants to say something. I mean, I might but it's interesting you ask that question. Debian in the last few months of last year in January has had a code of conduct issue and that has taken it, that was quite unpleasant and it looks quite unpleasant from the outside I can tell you if you read the private mailing list it's really quite bad. No fun at all. And I don't really know whether that answers your question about corporate influence. You know, Debian I think the majority of Debian are moving in the right direction but again, it's not it's not easy and it's not without conflict. Debian does not have the BDFL problem. These things are hard. I mean, they're hard and I think especially with developers the lines are blurry and I have actually, I have to talk about this BosDem a couple of years ago about, it was called Identity Crisis, it was a keynote here and basically the identity that we have as developers, as contributors to Free Software Project as our job but also as our identity and as hanging out with friends it's all really blurry. I mean, I always ask this when I give that talk how many people work on Free Software related things and have changed their job but continue working on the same thing. So like people are nodding their hands. Sometimes I ask that in a big auditorium and like half the room raises their hands. People switch from job to job but they do exactly the same thing with the same people. Some of these people are doing jobs that they were doing or working on things that they worked on as university students and so it's hard to remember that there is, it's hard to remember what's professional and what's personal when you're just hanging out with your friends and when you're in a professional environment and I think that's a big part of what happened with these cultures and since we've been particularly inclusive for so long it means that we have, it's complicated and we have to get over this and I tell you that Debbie in Private Thread was so demotivating to so many of us but we'll work through it, right? We'll improve our infrastructure. Molly gave a great talk earlier today about it and that's how we'll move on and we'll make Free Software better. We need to have diversity in Free Software because if we don't we're going to have instances like those soap dispensers that only work on white hands, right? Like these are, it's, we need to have diverse perspectives in order to make sure that the technology we create is is sufficient for what we need it. So, so actually give me this one I see, Richard. So what do you think the most important thing that happened since last FOSDM in Free Software Policy is? The most, the most the most important thing since the last time we did this panel about a year ago. I don't know. I mean, like I can't say, I can't say like these, these, this whole like MongoDB, Redis, Commons Clause thing. Because you think that's, it's not important. No, because I think that's that's... Actually, is this a trick question? It's not a trick question. It's actually an open-ended question. I don't... See what you'll say. I don't, I rarely on a panel do I rarely do I ask questions I don't know the answer to that the person's going to give and I do not know the answer you're going to give. For, for a few years I was being roped into by my employer to kind of write this top 10 news stories in open-source and free software for the year legal, legal news stories. Well, how is he listical? Yeah. Now, a famous lawyer in open-source named Mark Radcliffe beat me to it this time. So I just didn't even bother and I don't know what he listed for all I know he may have listed the Linux Code of Conduct thing. But I don't know. Like, recently this whole the MongoDB license thing has been on my mind partly because of my work with the OSI. But I don't really know the answer to your question. I was, I was not, I just don't think in terms of years. Okay. Sorry. You're not, thanks. Oh, that's, that's not a I mean, it's, it's a... I thought that was the leading question. That was the leading question. You think of that as a... I don't know that. I don't think that's necessarily the answer to the question. I mean, it's a Radcliffe's list now that I recall. But I just don't actually weirdly think of that as a, an open-source legal story. It's just a, you know, it's an acquisition. But it's a policy story. That's no way in. Well, I just, I'm sure most of you know, but just to make sure we're all clear which your Fontana works for a red hat. Not anymore. Yes. Yes, I do. I was acquired by IBM. And you heard some of our speakers mention this while Italo was unambiguous in his thought process about it. What is your thought process about IBM acquiring red hat? Are you looking at me? Okay. Who at our panel works for red hat? Who works for red hat? So who's talking to you? So I think I'm not, I'm not really able, so this is one of the few situations where I'm actually going to say I'm not really able to comment on this. I will say that the atmosphere at red hat is for the most part you know, things are just like moving on as usual and the acquisition hasn't actually happened yet. So the closing is planned to happen sometime, maybe at the end of this year. So, yeah, there's nothing I can really say. Yeah, I mean, and so you know, having lived through the urban oracle acquisition, which was a disaster for free software, Jim, because so many projects not just diaspora projects inside sun because sun for all their faults that we heard about today in an earlier talk was making some efforts to be a better citizen to these projects and almost all of them having to fork to survive. And I hope that doesn't happen to a lot of the projects that red hat does that I would hope that it doesn't but IBM's manner of participating in upstream projects is indeed radically different for red hats. Yeah, it is different. It's a different kind of legacy. One thing I will say, for example I would have always said this is that IBM had a different approach to dealing with these institutions, trade associations, non-profit organizations compared to red hat. Red hat had this kind of position of, you know, we're not going to get involved in all these entangling alliances. IBM was kind of all about you know, getting involved in organizations and starting organizations like that, you know, going back decades. So that's a that's just like one, you know, interesting difference. Yeah, IBM is often credited as the key organization that caused the OSDL free standards group merger that formed the Linux Foundation, for example. So that's a good example where that occurred. Yeah, IBM was certainly a major factor in the formation of OSDL to begin with. But you work for red hat, which will soon be IBM, but you don't work for Github and don't work for Microsoft. So can you comment on the acquisition of Microsoft? I'm staring at Justin Collin, you know. Well, I didn't ask him to comment because he works for Microsoft. I mean, that's not a free software story. I mean, Github is a proprietary software service provider. In fact, that's how I felt about it when I heard about it was I was like, oh, one proprietary software company acquired another proprietary software company. It has something to do with developers and developers like open source and it's kind of connected to a lot of open source projects are hosted on Github. And Github recommends licenses and recommends how you put a license file in your project. So that matters. Yeah, they don't like the use of copying, which is part of the GNU tradition. So they like the license to be called license. I will go on a dangerous limb here and say that I told various people at the FSF like 20 years ago that copying was a really dumb name because it covers copying, modifying, and distributing. It's a tradition. It's all about tradition. I'm glad you raised those two acquisitions at the same time because I think that they stand for the same proposition, which is that things change and that the way things are today are not the way that things will be tomorrow and we have to take whatever actions we can to protect ourselves to protect ourselves against the evil versions of ourselves and others and having distributed copyrights, choosing copy left these are all things making nonprofits strong these are all ways that we can help protect ourselves. Yeah, I'm just going to change the topic. We could talk about that all day, but I've been concerned about DRM for a long, long time but I was always protected from it because I have no DRM capable software on my laptop so it didn't affect me. I just boycut everything. But things are just closing in. It's hard, but sometimes it works. But things have been closing in and now public service broadcasters are putting requiring DRM to watch their TV channels and I'm just getting concerned that my one man boycott is not sufficient to combat this threat anymore and so since there were no two man boycott, thank you very much I appreciate that. Since there was no pretty talk about DRM today, I presume nobody submitted a talk about it. Is there anyone who can give any hope or any suggestions for what might happen in 2019 regarding DRM? So I frequently these days think of something Seth Shone of the EFF told me when he was working in the anti-DRM campaigns in the early 2000s that the way the inter-industry conversations happened the phrase they used was DRM is inevitable and that was the starting point of every conversation. I think DRM was inevitable. The one thing I did not disclose in our keynote this morning is that I am in fact not part of that boycott anymore. I admit to having used systems recently that have DRM in them and I'm not happy about that or comfortable with it but I have done it and I believe that the very few people boycott is not working and I don't know what we do about it but we're always on a collision course between DRM and free software how that collision course pays out now I'm not sure. We can try to change the law because right now DRM is actually killing copyright exceptions for instance and we are from Portugal and we managed to change the law in a way that you could break the technology to use to make a copyright exception. Actually there was a change or proposal in this European copyright reform in the beginning sadly it was rejected by one vote but we can try to look at in your country look at the law probably the law says that you can't break DRM even for legal purposes but we'll give you a workaround usually that workaround will not work then go to your politicians and say the law doesn't work please correct it that's what we have done and we did it absolutely I mean this is one of the reasons Conservancy is really really focused on getting some of the DMCA exceptions in place we did one at Conservancy for smart TVs and I worked on one for medical devices with a bunch of other medical device researchers this is amazing I hope that we can continue more discussion up Monday at copy left conf and otherwise next year thank you so much to the other organizers and to all of you this is so great