 Thanks a lot for joining my presentation and the topic today is why that should be at least great for business. Let me tell you a little bit about myself. I'm a free software developer for a long, long time for over 20 years already. I'm involved in all kinds of open source and free software projects. For example, I was a board member of the KDE foundation for quite a while. I founded the open desktop org network, wrote the user data manifesto and advised the United Nations regarding open source and a lot of other things. But I'm probably most well known as the founder of own cloud and the successor next cloud. Today I want to talk a little bit why the GPL is a great license for business. And here I have the agenda where I want to start to talk a little bit about free software licenses, open source licenses, then the different business models that exist. And then at the end, the conclusion why I think that GPL is actually the best license for our business. GPL started many years ago by from from this guy Richard Storm and obviously who in the early 80s wrote down the four freedoms. The first freedom is the freedom to run the program as you wish for any purpose. So the idea is that you can that you have a software that you can use and do whatever you want with it without any restrictions. And the second is the freedom to study how the program works, how the application works, how to change it. And yeah, just to understand how it, yeah, what's what's behind it, and to do also everything with the with the software as you want as in the first freedom. And this part requires that the source code is open, because otherwise you don't can't really study how it works. The third freedom is the freedom to read, distribute copies so you can help your neighbors. Obviously it comes from the, from the times where you help your neighbors with give them floppy disk or something nowadays you have the internet everywhere. But still the idea is that you can share an application with everybody. And the force is that you have the freedom to distribute a copy of your modified version to everybody else. So this is basically the idea that we can all build on top of the work from from others. Yeah, these are the four freedoms. I think they're really, really important. Now it is more important than ever. A little bit later in the 90s, the OSI, the open source initiative came up with the open source definition. It's like, I would say it's basically the same and I know that they are basically there's some differences but for this discussion of this talk, I think they're basically mean, relatively the same thing. Obviously, it means that the distribution should be, should be possible of software source code is available derived works again, and so on, that has no discrimination, and so on. But it's basically the same spirit, it's the same idea behind it. And this is what open source means and nowadays open source and free software is used in a lot of different contexts and not always, not always in the correct way, because some people think that open source means different things but this is where, where the name comes from, from the open source definition and free software. Of course. Okay, why is this important. The licenses even, even important. The thing is that if, if a piece of software is goes from one person to another person, then just by giving someone a floppy disk or giving someone a download link or the person just gets the software from the internet that's distribution. But if, if someone just has a software this, the person can't do anything with the software without a license the license is the piece of paper basically that has written down under which conditions. The users can use the software and what to do with it and what they can do with it what I cannot do with it. So that's why the license is very important. People think all that's only interesting for lawyers. Well, not really because if you, if you have a software you really want to do what cannot do with it what's my rights, what do I have to do. I mean that's what the license says. I'm going to go through some different license types first, because then later, I think this is important to understand why, why the GPL works works very well for for businesses and companies. So, most people say that from my from the license perspective that there's a spectrum. This is what I have here in this bar on the slide. It goes from one direct one side which is public domain to the other side, which is a trade secret. And of course there's a big gray area in between but let me, let me go through that what this means the one extreme is public domain or to the left here. It basically means that someone creates a software writes a source code, and then gives up ownership and says okay, this is now owned by the public. This is now owned by everybody. I don't have any special arts about it okay I created it, but everybody can do what I want it's now it basically something that has no owner anymore. That's something that is from a from a legal perspective a little bit difficult for example there are a lot of countries, including Germany where I'm from, where this is not possible you can't give up owner rights of something that you created completely. You, and there's nothing that has no there's no intellectual property that just floating in the air. So this is, this is not always possible, a lot of countries. So the next, the next piece in the spectrum that's of course more realistic. That's what's usually called permissive licenses. So instead, okay, and the creator of the software still owns the software technically, but allows everybody to do whatever they want with it. So here just this is something I own and I, I wrote in the case of software but everybody can do everything they want with it. It sometimes comes with some restrictions like hey don't sue me, or there's no reliable there's no instead there's no guarantee that it works there's basically you can't expect anything but here is it and if you want to use it, you can do it. You can do everything with it no restrictions. That's still very common. This is usually that's licenses like BST or MIT or Apache license. This is this kind of licenses, permissive licenses. The next one in the spectrum is, which are what are usually called a copy left licenses. This is of course is choke. That's basically the opposite of copyright. It's going to be left. This is something that came out of the free software movement. This other typical GPL and HPPL licenses. How they are usually work is, here's a software, you can do whatever you want with it. But if you make derived work, if you take the software and you do any changes you build something on top of it or you could be right to work or from the software. And then you need to distribute this derived work under the same license. So this basically means that software that was once licensed under GPL cannot suddenly become proprietary because it's a requirement that's everything that is built on top of software that's everything that's derived from this piece of software has to be distributed under the same license. This is concept that's really, really nice. I think genius concept invented by Richard Stallman and by the Free Software Foundation. And yeah, it's obviously still very common. I mean the Linux kernel, for example, is licensed with GPL. Lots of other software is licensed under GPL and that's something that works very well. So that in the spectrum is something that is usually called proprietary licenses. These are licenses where you cannot do whatever you want with the software. It comes with some restrictions. The most common restriction is that, hey, you're only allowed to use the software if you pay me. And that's usually the licensing business model from a lot of companies, Microsoft Oracle, Google, Apple and so on, where they say hey here we wrote this nice piece of software you can have it, but only if you pay me money. That's obviously not open source, not free software anymore. The last part of the spectrum is trade secret which basically means hey there's software, but no one is able allowed to see it or know that it exists or it's a really secret. It's of course the most proprietary extreme. So these are the licenses and this is how they exist today. Now the question is of course, would it be somehow possible to get paid to write free software. Right, I mean, let's go back again. As I mentioned the proprietary licenses, there you can actually sell some rights, you can say hey, this software, you can use the software, if you pay me any money. If you look at the green pieces of the spectrum. I mean all those green pieces that have like, they have the right that you can do whatever you want with the software with some restrictions but overall you can do everything you want with the software. And then there is how do you get any, if you sell nothing, how do you basically get paid to write free software. That's that's a big question and that's also the topic of this talk here of course. It's also something that I am personally thinking about a lot. Because as I mentioned in the beginning, I was involved in the KDE project for a long, long time. And the KDE project as some of you might know is one of the biggest open source free software projects in the world. It's completely community driven. So there is no, there is no company behind it. There is no business model is just completely built out of volunteers. The problem here is of course that you have a lot of volunteers who are enthusiastic about the software and they contribute. And then they really drop out after a while because then they have a real job or they have a family or they're done with the university and then they want to then need to like earn real money because well, they need to pay for things. And you're not getting paid for writing KDE software. So for me it was always the question okay what can we do. Is there a way to get basically paid to write free software. Of course, the question is, what are they paying for, because as I mentioned in the beginning, they're not really paying for using the software because it's always possible to use the software that's like part of the free software license. But the way capitalism works is like if you want to get money from a customer then you have to give something to the customer so what can you actually give to the customer that they're willing to pay for. That's a very fundamental question of course if you want to get paid. For that I want to discuss a little bit different open source business models. I think that's interesting because everybody's talking about open source business models that even a lot of people say open source business one don't even exist it's just like a lot of different opinions. So what I did what I did here is I looked up open source business models on Wikipedia. There's actually a page about it open source business models, which lists all kinds of open source business models just for fun. For a second. Most of the ones I mentioned at the beginning are not really working. They're all a bit weird. I mean they're technically open source business models, but they're not really successful and at the end of the list, I come to some open source business models that actually actually work. So the first one that's listed on the Wikipedia page is selling branded merchandising. This basically means that, let's say KDE, the software is free software everybody can do what they want, but someone is selling KDE t-shirts, and the income of those t-shirts is enough to pay for all the development of the developers. That's theoretically possible, but I'm not aware of any significant open source free software projects with really like pays for a lot of development just by selling, I don't know most pets and t-shirts. That's something that's sometimes nice benefit. You get a little bit of money, but at the end it's not really working open source business model. The next one is selling software as a service. This is something that is sometimes used for our server side software. So let's say you are I don't know MariaDB, for example, and the software is free software. Maybe you offer a hosted MariaDB service to the world. Then that's something you can do. It mainly works for server side software, not so much for client side software, but even server side software is a bit weird because you're not really get paid for the software you paid for the service like for the hosting for the service for the CPU for the bandwidth. It's not really something to do with the software which is of course fine. It doesn't matter where the money coming from. But it has like lots of problems. For example, everybody else can take the same software and put it on a server and basically selling it to for cheaper price. And I will talk about this later because that's actually a super interesting question for the current discussions. The next theoretical business model is partnering with funding organizations. So that's the idea that you sometimes have organizations who, I don't know, they're fighting for climate change or for, I don't know, developing countries or other other good things and then you somehow partner up with them. And then you say okay, my software is also good to fight climate change, or also really helpful for education in Africa or something. And because of that, we got some, we share some of the donations. There's also something that sometimes possible but again I'm not really aware of any really big software project which is like funded like that. So the idea is that selling certificates and trademark use. So the idea is that the software is free software, but I don't know, let's stick for the example with KDE again. Because it has a trademark of the name and logo, and that's owned by the KDE EV and potential business model would be that the KDE EV would say, okay, our software is free. You can do whatever you want with it. But if you want to put our logo on, I don't know, on the laptop or on something, some product, then you have to pay us. That's technically possible. But I think it's not really helpful for building up a good active community. If your community can't really use your logo of your project, not without paying at least. So that's something that's theoretically possible. But I'm again, I'm not really aware of any, any significant free software open source project which is funded by selling trademarks or certificates or other things. The next one is donations. We have a lot of projects were asking for donations, and there are ways for different kinds of donations with PayPal has a donation system was very active nine years ago nowadays services like GitHub to offer something to get paid. There might be a few people who are actually paid by donations. But this is usually like some really well known super famous rockstar developers who are maybe able to raise a little enough donations to really pay the rent and the family and everything but most bigger open source projects don't really get enough donations to really pay for everything. The next one is bounty driven development crowd sourcing. So this means that you say, again, stick stick to the example of KDE. Let's say okay there's software available to everybody. But if you want, we are thinking about developing one specific feature. And if you wanted feature, then pay us a little bit of money and other also pay a little bit of money and a thousand people pay a lot of a little bit of money. And then the end of the day you have enough money together then to pay like the developers to implement this feature. This is often discussed. But again, I am, I'm not a big fan. Usually this creates like conflicts between just some developers who develop one feature and then the maintainers who actually have to maintain the software in the long run, because if you're into know a little bit about software development and then software engineering, then you know that you can't just like pile up features on top of features features features from random people and then after 10 years you still have working software. And that's not how it is. So you really need to like develop software and then refactor them and maintain them and, and so on. And that's all not really paid by this bounty driven development because the users basically only pay for the blinking shiny buttons, but not really for the real work that's been behind it. The next one is advertising. This is the idea that maybe inside the software you are showing advertising. And that's something you might think that well that's that's horrible I would never do that. Well, you might use browser like Firefox, which is actually funded like Firefox Mozilla has a big team of developers as you might know, and the money is coming actually from advertising like inside the browser but mainly for using Google search inside the browser which at the end of the day is also advertising. And yeah, this can pay for a big development team. Depending on the type of software you have, I don't think this is a really good idea but in some cases like Firefox it is, it is actually working. Then the next one is, again, this is all coming from the Wikipedia page. So that's all not my ideas, but I was really amazed when I saw this big list of potential open source business models. The next one is delayed open source. This means that the software is open source and everybody can use it, but the paying customers get the software a little bit faster. Maybe they have a feature for a year. And if you want to have it during this year you have to pay for it is basically proprietary during this year. But then it's somehow guaranteed that after this time, for example, a year, every time everything becomes open source and everybody can use it. There was actually software like that. It's not really good. And some others will use it business model many years ago, but it's not so common anymore and also comes with a lot of problems like security patches does it means that you can get security patches like only like super late if you're not paying or it's really something that is not really working. And then the last one of the list of not really good business model is open source at the end of life. The idea is that you have a software that is completely proprietary, but is somehow written on the website or in some kind of contract that once the software is no longer developed by the by the company who produces the software then becomes automatically open source. And of course, it's nothing to do with free software because it is not free software it's only basically free software once it's dead at the end of life. But yeah I guess it gives you a little bit of benefit in the software will not go away because if the company dies then at least the software becomes open source but at the end of the day that's not really an open source business model Okay so let's let's go to the business model that are actually used in the real world and they're actually more common more realistic. The first one is selling professional services. So, this is something that's actually used by a lot of smaller open source companies that sometimes have a product some piece of software that is free software open source. And then give it away for free. And then make the money by selling services around it for example consulting, maybe that paid feature development, or maybe they do workshops or trainings or other things around this open source software. The problem here is a little bit that it doesn't really scale. What do I mean with it. I mean that that you do training and you do workshops and you do bug fixing and things and you get paid for that, but you don't really get paid for actually writing the software. So, this basically means that for smaller organizations maybe have 10 people or 50 people maybe 100 people where you do like workshops and trainings and bug fixes and things. And then a little bit on the side you're still like writing the software, which is like helps you with with your business with actually selling trainings and bug fixes and so on. But you don't really have the full attention to really writing developing the software because, yeah, and if you have a dedicated team to do that, then this team again has no real business model needs to be financed from the other people who then do this, the paid bug fixing. So there are a lot of companies who do it like that, but they're usually all the small or medium sized but not, not really significant free software open source company. The next one is this is what's called usually open core or also related to the freemium model. This means that you have a software that is open and everybody can use it, but there are some extensions around it. And that are proprietary. And these extensions are so important that you can't really use a software without it. I mean you can but you really don't really want to. So that's something that you usually have if there's a community edition and enterprise edition. You hear this a lot. Community edition means free software but has limited features enterprise edition is somehow better, but it's proprietary you have to pay for it. At the end of the day that's not really open source because what you really want is the enterprise edition, which is then not open source so this is a popular business model, but I don't really like it too much, and because it is not really in the spirit of open source free software. This is dual licensing. So that's something that's used by some companies, for example, the QT library, UI library, that's dual licensed. So what you see here is that this is available under an open source free software license, and usually something in the copy left area, like GPL or a GPL area, which means you can take it they can do whatever you want with it, but it comes with the restrictions if you want to build on top of it, if you want to have derived work, then it also needs to have the same license. And that's something that some customers don't want, because they don't want to like open source, they are changes. Then the company can say no problem just buy it under this other license, this proprietary license and then you don't have the restriction, but this costs some money. Again, it's a bit weird. It's also it was common like a few years ago, but it's not really super common nowadays. It's also very controversial and free software community because it's not really following the spirit. Then, to the last one. And I think this is the most successful open source business model, which is enterprise subscriptions support subscriptions. It's used by redhead to the next cloud and many others and that's scalable. This means the software is completely free software you can do whatever you want with it. I mean if you look at center as a fedora, for example, from redhead, or open source from Susie or next cloud of course, it's you can it's feature completely you can take it you can do what you want with it. But the idea is that if you want to run it in a mission critical way. Then you usually want to have a support subscription because you want to have a business relationship with the people who actually build it. And this is something that is something big companies usually want. If you buy next cloud subscription. I don't want to go into details, but you get access to a lot of information and knowledge that you wouldn't have otherwise. For example, the expertise you really have like access to the engineers who wrote the software in the first place. They can help you running the software scaling the software. If you have an influence on the roadmap. Maybe you can say hey, please develop a little bit in this direction or that direction stability, you have like the maybe access to special documentation maybe have like, I don't know, workshops trainings but again, not individually sold as I explained earlier but part of the subscription. Maybe you have something about compliance. You have all kind of services around it. But they are bundled together with the subscription and the price subscription that's optional to the software. And that's really the best open source business model out there and all big open source companies in the world following this business model. This is not from development of redhead the value. Obviously nowadays redhead is bought by IBM for really high price of 34 billion. So obviously this business model is is working. Okay, great. But this, this was the state of things like until a few years ago. Because nowadays we have something like that. That's the cloud and cloud computing and this changes a lot of things. The idea of cloud computing is of course that you no longer taking software and running it yourself. And for that, you might need this support subscription that I explained earlier, but nowadays you get a service from a cloud provider. The service is provided from a cloud provider like Amazon, Google, Microsoft and so on. And you just consume this service and you don't really need this enterprise subscription anymore. That's a bit of a problem because more and more of those software companies who selling enterprise subscriptions. They have a bit of a problem with their business model because people don't really buy their subscriptions anymore because you just buy everything pre configured and provided by Amazon. A few examples here of what happens here is Redis for example. Redis is software that is usually what I was until recently made the money mainly with enterprise subscriptions. But nowadays you can get a hosted Redis as I said from Microsoft or Amazon or all the others. And they don't really make, well, they still make plenty of money, but not as much as before. So what did they do? Redis introduced the common clause that's a new software license that has an additional restriction. This forbids to sell the software of a hosted or consulting without a commercial license. And that's interesting. Basically tries to block Amazon and Google and all the others for offering a hosted service of Redis without paying them. And this restriction is of course a restriction that's not allowed according to the first of four freedoms of Richard Storman or the open source definition by the OSI. And people like Simon Phipps from the OSI said, yeah, okay, that means that Redis is our proprietary Redis and open source of free software. And that's of course correct, because this new restriction violates the definition. And this means that Redis is according to the common clause no longer free software open source. Next example is MongoDB. MongoDB is a very similar situation. They're also sold enterprise subscriptions for the software. Nowadays MongoDB is offered by the big cloud companies. They introduced something called a server-side public license. I mean all these license have very nice name. But again, they have a similar restriction and again this means that it's proprietary now. It's no longer open source. MongoDB very similar. Business source license no longer open source. There's an article that was an article on TechCrunch a while ago, which says that the common clause again this new license stops open source abuse. So open source is somehow abused. The concept of free software and open source is abused. And this new license is like needed to protect open source. And that's of course something that I completely disagree with, because it is basically means that you're trying to save open source by killing it. And I say that open source is somehow like needs to be protected and I protect it by making it no longer open source. So that's of course a weird argument, but I will come back to this later. So now to the last point where I actually want to explain why I think that copy left licenses like the GPL actually trades for business, because it can come since many, many, many advantages. The first is that it creates an equal playing field for everybody for people inside the company and people in the community. All this discussions about like cloud providing and public source licenses and service side public license and so on. They're all ignore the aspect of communities and communities are most one of the most important things of free software because it guarantees that everybody can work together at the same playing field. And that's possible with GPL licenses but once a company is like in control of everything and somehow controls these licenses with a Contributed License Agreement for example, then this no longer works. That's really one of the strengths of the GPL. This is why the Linux kernel basically means that all big companies on the planet work together on improving the Linux kernel. And this is enforced and enabled by the GPL. The second benefit is that for folks are possible, which means that the best results are enforced. So, this means that if a group of maintainers organization or someone is creating software and developing it. And if they're doing a bad job, then someone can take it over and does it better. And this really enables the best results. If a company would be in complete control of that this would no longer be possible because the company can screw up or disappear. And then the software has a problem. Next one is the upstream and downstream network is only possible with free software or at least compatible licenses. So there's a ton of software on the free software licenses on the internet. And it's really really important that the ownership structure and the licensing structure all the software is done in a way that we can all build on top of the work of others. And if you have this kind of proprietary licenses, or this proprietary forks, I mean, I don't know MIT and Apache license and able that you have this like commercial spin offs and things like that. Then you have this code islands of code islands where you can no longer work together no longer contributed working together. One of the most important things. The next benefit of the of real open source free software licenses like the GPL is that you can really work with the best developers. This is something we at next load experience like all the time, because we get so many nice job applications from really good developers from all over the world. We all like open source and free software licenses and follow people is a dream to write like GPL software as a job. Together like yeah well nice paid job together with some idealisms and the principles that that you all fight for. And yeah if you have like weird licenses, if you do like proprietary extensions or other weird things, you just don't get the best developers. That's just how it is. So, next thing is that ecosystems are keen or this ecosystems means that you're no longer on an island you want to connect with everybody. Again, the GPL enforces an equal playing field that you can talk with all the other software you can, you can link it you can build something together. Just if you look at modern links distributions it's like amazing how how much software is in there and how it works together and all benefits on which other builds on top of each other. Again, it's only possible with the GPL and proper free software open source licenses who make it possible that this software is all usable by each other. And it's also like sustainable it's not going away. GPL enforces good community governance with licenses means that yeah well everybody who is contributing something can you also get something back. That sounds simple, but that's something that's really important to for for active community, where everybody benefits. And from a customer side, our customers at least that really like it that there is no vendor login and something like next cloud but same for other software of course. If you have like do a licensing business models, if you have open core business model, lots of other weird business models, you basically can no longer use the software once you stop paying. But in the case of a proper GPL software for proper open source business model. There's no vendor login. This means you have fair relations between supplier and customer so if you, if you do a good job, then you have happy customers if you don't do a good job you don't have happy customers. And at the end of the day happy customers is really good for business I mean it sounds like stupid but it's really how it is. It doesn't force your customers to pay you. This is not going to work. So, owning the code is not important, the value of a company is in the people. A lot of companies and organizations that try to do contribute license agreement, where they basically ask the community to give the ownership rights to the company. Sometimes important because if the company should be sold to someone that it is important that the company owns something own some intellectual property. But at the end of the day, in my experience what's really important is not to plan the big exit, but to really plan a big working sustainable company and for that the value is in the people. And asking all our community members to give the company the right of the code is something that makes everybody unhappy, maybe makes the investors at the end of the happy but that's not really important for the long term success. Yeah, and if you just look at what redhead and center s is doing, I find this quite, quite amazing I mean center is now is belongs now to redhead. And center s is of course the complete free software version of redhead enterprise Linux everybody can download do whatever they want with it. And it basically generates like awareness and everybody knows how it works and is using it. And once it becomes mission critical. And redhead and by an enterprise subscription. So this like really super openness and fair relations is something I really really like. So, another benefit of TPL software is that customers always have the right to freely distribute and use it. That's something we next load notice all the time. So maybe we are selling an enterprise subscription to one department of the company that using it. And they like it so much that it spreads to other organizations to other divisions and departments and so on. And then suddenly it's used by more and more, more and more users inside the organization. And this is possible because it is GPL it's really legally possible. For us it's like free advertising basically right because if one person recommends this to someone else, then, yeah it's used by more people and then I don't know one or two years later you sometimes get a message from a department that you've never heard of. Yeah, I'm also was recommended was given to me by someone and we're using it and. The whole department is using it, we would like to have an enterprise subscription to make sure it really keeps on running. That's free advertising and that's only possible with GPL software. So contributions flow in and out of the company that's another thing. And it's like, if a company improves the software because it's used internally. If it's a GPL, they have the requirement that the contributions to again the work on that's built on top of the rife to work needs to be released under the same license, which means it needs to be published, at least on a request somewhere on the internet which means everybody else contributes again from the same improvements. So in that way, basically guarantees that, that there are no islands there's no fragmentation, it's all basically flows back, ideally, hopefully to the upstream project which makes the life of everybody else. Then a bit of a legal argument, the copy left license slightly well understood and tested. That's something that's interesting because like many years ago maybe 20 years ago. There was a lot of discussions that the GPL licenses might introduce some kind of legal risk for companies if they're using GPL software and some kind of viral license that makes it very difficult to use. I would actually argue that the opposite is true. The GPL is so well understood. It's so well tested and there are so many experts around it that you can really know precisely what it means and what it doesn't mean and how to use it and so on. If you look at other licenses if you buy some commercial software from someone, or just in terms of services you have to agree to know it is. I think no one can really read it or understand it or really completely. There's a real risk that it means for your organization if you buy some software, if you use some soft, some service that you don't really completely understand because this is a completely custom license which is so complex that you can't really understand it. And standard copy left licenses are so well understood, which is really good. The GPL software can never die or disappear. Even if an organization like the company would like disappear, the software stays around. So someone always has the rights to develop it further to maintain it. And some dual licensing on some other proprietary pieces. And then the vendor goes away you have a problem with copy left and software GPL it's guaranteed a software always sticks around it's always there. The GPL v3 the latest version even has patent protection, which is something that's really really useful for users and also companies because it's, you have protection it's not possible that someone gives you a software and then through through later for patent violations which happens all the time unfortunately. But this has been in patent protection which is again it's a good thing. So, let me give you some real world examples because as some of you might know I have some history with my former company own cloud, which did a lot of mistakes, I have to say, and some improvements we do nowadays with next cloud. For example, own cloud at the time required a contributor license agreement, because we tried to do a licensing an open core. This made the contributors unhappy and a lot of open source volunteer contributors actually left the project. That's something that which not was not really working at least not in a real community way. Next thing is that employees at the time they were unhappy that they had to develop proprietary extensions, not open source components, which again you might say well that's not important. But yeah it was actually great unhappy employees was difficult to find good people. And that's something that we have fixed the next cloud everybody next cloud only produces free software, which is like again makes everybody more happy. Sometimes customers from open source were surprised about the vendor login because that's also open source software what's the problem. But the thing is if you buy the enterprise edition, and then you stop paying you're not allowed to use the enterprise edition anymore. And that's when the login that's a bit of a trick. And again that's fixed with next cloud. Okay, now I told you so many things why, why GPL is actually a good thing and why it works very well for us and for redhead and for Susan many other companies. You might think, okay why are some companies actually trying to play with not real working non open source business models, come up with all weird of weird with restrictions. And yeah what's really going on what's going on with this new licenses that are not really open source. Let me go back to my to my slide that I showed you in between this tech crunch article common clause stops open source abuse. Again, something that I explained earlier already that is not really my opinion. So, what kind of article is that is this like the written by an open source developer who's feeling abused is this written by someone who is doing GPL software and feels like ripped off. Well, actually, if you scroll down a little bit, you see where who wrote this article and you can see that that the person who wrote this article is actually identify identifies itself as a venture capitalist. Who is investing in open source companies, and the person even lists like your 1313 years venture capital and even lists a bunch of open source companies where the person invested in. So, yeah, so this is actually where you can see where the motivation behind this is coming from. Yeah. Cloud companies or, or licenses GPL license that might not be good for for for venture capitals for people who want to do the big exit. But I think they're really good for customers are being I think they're really good for developers. And they're really good for business. And as I said before, there are plenty of companies who are really successful with GPL and this is working completely fine on equal playing ground between a company customer the community volunteers and so on. But it's not so good for for venture capital investors. That's fine. But that's something completely different topic, because I really think in real life, it's actually the GPL is a great license for business and for companies that plenty of examples for that. So the summary is next lot many other software would not exist without open source we would not exist without open source because we are working together with our community that are very fair way. So I really think the open source community and the startup community, and we all together, we should try to push our work forward without giving up the four freedoms that I showed you at the very beginning of my talk for some fast money for some fast big exit, because if you really care about software, then GPL is great and even helps you to build up a great business. Okay, thanks a lot. I really hope that this information at this presentation was interesting with a lot of interesting information for you. And I think there's still the opportunity to to do some Q&A. So I'm happy to answer any questions that that are popping up. Thank you.