 Rafa, Rafa, well thanks for coming. I'm opening sort of the business track. I didn't realize really it was a business track to be honest because I wanted to make it sort of half business, half policy, but I will talk a little more about the business side of doing free software. How do you make money? Open Exchange, who of you knows Open Exchange? Okay, I don't talk that much about it, but I'm one of the founders and CEO. We do both the application software as well as the backends for email, the DovCut back end you may know and power DNS on the secure DNS and DNS side. We're about 210 people and we're a profitable company. So we're making money. That's the good news. Also we're growing very rapidly. I mean, money helps in growing because you can pay more people. I guess we all eventually want to get paid as we at least get a little older than, and kids show up and so forth, then you need to. The Reinhardsgebot is a good example of a good mission that lasts for many hundred years and also generates good business. For those of you who don't know what it is, it simply describes what beer should be made of. Beer is always good. That always works. It's very simple rules. It's just three components. We added yeast in the meantime because back in the day, they were just brewing beer by chance and hopefully there was enough yeast in the air. Now we're putting it in. But anyway, it's simple rules that lasted for 500 years. It generated a huge business that's still around and it is open. Of course, those rules are visible to everyone. Now, how can we transpose that into our world? This is sort of what I want to talk about. How can we transpose this principle of open rules and openness of freedom to do what you want into a business world and into the world that we're in today because that world in the 15 years that the FSFE is underway has changed quite a bit. In 15 years ago, people were mostly using proprietary services to dial up either into the internet or into the services that they were using directly with these proprietary services. My brain cannot forget my computer of ID. That's the number up there. It's still there. And I don't know why because that was my one proprietary service that I was using. Even the Fido Nets and whatever you may have done have been sort of closed networks that weren't proprietary and didn't communicate amongst each other very well. That's the pre-internet age. We tend to forget this. This stuff has been around for 20 years before the internet really took off in the late 90s for the rest of the world, so to speak. Now, what they all had in common is they were all closed systems. But they were based on closed protocols run by proprietary companies that were trying to make money from that, right? The internet, of course, as you all know, is different. It was built on a stack of open protocols and freely available implementations of those protocols, free software. Now, why is that important? And why did it change the world? Simply because it created an ecosystem that everybody could participate in. You could just use your box at home. You need it still. Internet connection costs money, but all the rest is free. And you could build a service, your website, your blog, even your e-commerce shop, and your whole company on top of that. And millions and millions of people did. I don't know if you remember, but the numbers back in the day, oh, now we have one million servers that you can reach on the World Wide Web. That was a big deal. Of course, those numbers seem very small today as we have billions of connected devices. But the reason why it worked was because all these things were not owned by a single company. All these things were by definition open and by the people that also made information here that took care of making sure that the licenses worked properly for the software that was made freely available to everyone. And that this sort of continued to work for software. Now, for software, I think we've done a pretty good job. The amount of free software that's available is huge. And we've built an ecosystem that has changed the world for the better, I think. Even though sometimes when you look into the internet, you may think differently, but overall, I guess we've done pretty well. Now, that was used by many, many, many people, smart people to start new companies. And some of these new companies have become so large that they run big chunks of the internet services all by themselves. Again, sort of going full circle back inside proprietary silos. Now, a Google or a Facebook or even a Microsoft that has changed, right? The old sort of proprietary software, enemy Microsoft has become a proprietary service Microsoft. Now, why is that going back full circle? Because all these environments that these people are building are fully controlled by them. And even though they're using a ton of open source software, maybe 95% of what they provide is based on free software. But the other 5% is the proprietary pieces that they lock to their devices like Apple or to their service like Google and Facebook or to the whole end to end ecosystem like Microsoft. And really, it's not very open in a sense that even though they're using all the free software, nobody can really participate without them wanting you to. And if they change their mind, they can just say, okay, bye-bye. The risk of these services is also, and we've seen that just recently with WhatsApp, for example, you build a huge service, you build your silo, you collect all this data, and then you sell your company. And the buyer, of course, now decides what to do with all that knowledge that was acquired. And of course, you can see why this is happening. I mean, if WhatsApp is the biggest address book in the world, if you count those, say when it got acquired 500 million users, if everybody had 100 addresses in there, that's tens of billions of contact information. We only are seven billion people, so you can say you've bought the address book of the world and that is what Facebook paid for. Same goes for LinkedIn and another one of these services. That's what Microsoft paid for because it's the address book of the world. Now creating these silos is dangerous and wrong in many ways. And I think we have to evolve to change that. And in fact, that's a pretty good business opportunity also for all of us. When you think of it, why are there yet no free versions of things like LinkedIn or Facebook? I know there are attempts to do that, but none of them are really successful. Why is that? Why are these companies using free software but not why don't they make their services free again? We have to work on rules and on policy and we have to work inside our companies that we're in to change that because this will lock down the internet again. All this wonderful free internet that we've been building will disappear if these people get it their way. We will have a few monopolies that run the whole show, that own all the data, right? And that are also of course easily attackable. I mean talk, I won't even go to security what that means, right? If a few companies collect all this data and run the whole show for us. I don't think this is very healthy as an ecosystem. It is not an ecosystem, right? It's not an ecosystem. Ecosystem means that you have rich participation. This has very poor participation because it's only a handful of players. And what it means to tax income and so forth we've just seen with companies like Apple but all the rest of course also that won't work. So this has to go elsewhere. We have to recreate the free ecosystem but on the services layer. I think we've done very well on the software layer but where are the free services? How do we do that? And like I said before, it is a huge opportunity for all of us. Let me talk about my company. How do we make money? But you can, it's free software. You download it and you can run it yourself. So why would you want to pay us? Several reasons because very large telcos use our software. And of course they need to be able to provide a continuous service. And for them to be able to do so they need to be able to call us up and help them fix things when they break. And what do we do? We only sell them that service if they buy a commercial license of the same software. It's the same code. It's a different license because that license helps us to have a scalable business model. So we're saying how many users are on the system. If it's 100,000 users, it's cheaper than compared to 10 million users or even 50 million users on our systems. We want to make more money if people make more use of it and make themselves more money. And so you get a scalable business model like in a traditional software, proprietary software model on the one hand, but still you're providing free software. The second topic is many of our customers don't really want to run that software themselves anymore. I mean, building a whole, we probably all know that running a full stack, a full Linux stack, we do email and productivity software around this. I mean, running an email stack is already pretty hard. Especially when you go to security, anti-spam, anti-virus, anti-fraud, spearfishing, da-da-da-da-da-da-da. And even very, very large telcos like Vodafone, for example, is a customer of ours. They don't want to run it themselves anymore. So we run it for them. So we are providing a service. And again, you get a scalable business model because we're saying you pay us per user. That's on the system. It's live on the system. And again, that's millions of users so you can make enough money to pay 210 employees for us because that's a friend that we see. That as the complexity of environment increase, less and less companies want to run them themselves. We call this the cloud. The cloud is just somebody else's computer on that T-shirt. But of course now, so, okay, let's think about this. So we're going from the software age to the cloud age. We've done well with free software. Now how do we create a free cloud? What is the free cloud? And this is what I think this is all about. Now, I think that this evolution is unstoppable. We will do this. We've seen that proprietary silos that rule the whole world don't really work also from a policy perspective because what that would mean is that local law is not applicable to those services anymore. When you think of what the takedown of safe harbor really meant. Somebody does not know what safe harbor is? Okay. Vaguely, okay, let me. Okay, let me explain. Let me explain, it was politicians making their lives easier by saying you can self certify that you comply to local law. So example, you're in a U.S. company, you're Google. Google could say we adhere to local law in Germany because we make sure our services are done in a way that they are. Now, it was brought down by a young Austrian student by the name of Max Schremmen, his lawyer from Luxembourg in the EU court because the rationale was very simple. He said, look, the laws between those countries are incompatible. That's a patriot act in the U.S. That allows the U.S. government to access data from U.S. companies whenever they wish without a lawsuit or anything. Now, that is illegal in most of the EU. So how can Google say we're complying to German law because they can't, because the law is incompatible? So it kind of makes sense, right? And so unless we have the same law everywhere, this won't work. So also, when you think it through, really, this should take down all those services from countries that don't comply to the law in your own country, meaning, really, it should be illegal to use any of the U.S. services in, say, Germany, because we're in Germany, which, of course, did not happen because that economically would be an interesting challenge, right? Of course, I guess, again, talking from a business perspective, that's pretty interesting because we here in the room, we can provide services that comply to these laws. If we create free services in the sense of Libre based on free and Libre software, you can create a trustable service that can be localized to any country and any law based on the same rules and principles that we've worked on on the software side. Yes? Well, first of all, the simple answer would be you run the service in each of the countries to comply to the laws, right? How do you check? Well, the systems need to talk to each other, obviously. No, no, it wouldn't. So you're saying, concrete example, you're in Germany, you're sending an email to your American colleague, right? Your email then can be seen by the U.S. government, indeed. Yes, but that's also when you call them by phone. That's also when you fly there and talk to them, right? We can't change that, but what we can change is that the email that you receive and that you're not sending to your U.S. colleagues adheres to the local laws that you're in. We're not cutting wires between the countries. That doesn't make any sense, right? Because that was, it's just the same issue that we've had before the internet. You need to use the microphone, otherwise we're having a little dialogue here that nobody can follow. If you've got a chat service, everybody on the chat system has got to be able to see all the conversation going on on the chat system. And therefore, that chat service is inescapably visibly in all four countries involved, as it were. And as a result, there's sort of no getting out of the fact that it crosses all of the borders. No, but that problem is not solvable, right? And I'm not talking about that problem. That is unsolvable. If we communicate across the borders, you have to deem that conversation under those two laws, and if it's incompatible, it's incompatible, right? If you do a phone call to the U.S., it's the same thing, right? The NSA may be snooping on you because you're doing that phone call, right? So don't talk to the U.S. people or fly them into Germany if you feel like that shouldn't be happening, right? So there's nothing we can do about systems we can do something. If a, what I'm talking about is it can't be that there is one global system for a service that everybody uses because that enforces the law of the country that service is coming from for the whole world, right? It also, I mean, there's lots of different disadvantages to these silos. I don't know how you feel about, you know, what's happening in real-time communications and chat applications. I look on my phone, I now have everything, right? I have WhatsApp, Snapchat, Facebook Messenger, and I go nuts. I mean, I hate this. These are silos. How about protocols that can talk to each other? How about X and PP? This is why email is so beautiful because systems in different countries can talk to each other and still I can run my system. And that's all going back to open protocols and open implementations of these things, right? The distribution of federation of systems that talk open protocols, I think, like we've done for the whole of the internet, also applies to the next layer above when we talk applications. And for email, it works, right? I mean, X is an email company, you know, Dovcott runs 70% of all IMAP service in the world. So hell, what, right? This is a good implementation of an open protocol. You can think of IMAP what you want, right? It's not an easy protocol, but it is open and everybody can use it, right? Same for mail transfer. Now, of course, we need to evolve that and make it better, more secure, hide the metadata and so forth. But still, it is an open protocol and everybody can implement it and you can run your server yourself if you feel like it. If you feel like, you know, Hillary Clinton who did that too, funny enough. I came up with a bunch of rules and that's the Reinheitsgebot for cloud services, which are simple again. It's four, not three, but anyway. I mean, a simple fact is that many, many services that are really famous are only available from one provider. You get your WhatsApp from WhatsApp. You get your Skype from Microsoft. You get your Facebook from Facebook. This bind in itself means you're locked in, right? This is the opposite of freedom because you have no freedom of choice. Whatever they think they do, they'll do and you cannot do anything against it. So rule number one, don't use a service that's only available from one provider. Very simple. That means, you know, stop using a quite a few things which is not realistic, I tried, right? I really tried and I have to say it's not realistic. I mean, we don't have good alternatives to some of those siloed applications and if it is only because of the empty network problem, right, if you switch over to another messenger and nobody is there, it's pretty lonely. You know, chatting with yourself, I don't need a chat application for that. I can do that in my hotel room. So number two, if a service is available from many, if the service involves storing data from you, you must be able to transport the data over, which really means two things. First of all, it must be able, you must be able to get the data out of the system. And second, and that's often forgotten, the data must be in some kind of format that's digestible by the other service. You know, Facebook can say, no, we have a download. I mean, you can do the Facebook download everything thingy, right, and what do you get gigabytes of gibberish that you can't do anything with because it's just in a structure that Facebook came up with and nobody can really work on that data. Of course, we could create something that makes sense of the data again, but you lose way too much when you do that. So it must be, I wouldn't say less, but let's say small loss data transfer capability. And we all have that for ages for email, right? Many of you, I guess, like me, have their email archive for as far as you go back in email. And why is that? Because it's an open storage format and we could transport our mailboxes from one email server to another easily with the help of the email clients that did it for you. If you're a little more geeky, you can do other things that are more efficient, but we could do it and we did. And so we have all that data. How about your chat history, right? How about your Facebook history? How about your Skype history? How about your LinkedIn history or Xing history? For that matter, very hard, right? Forget it, it is not possible. Yeah, right, so good point. When you get a new phone, and that's sort of the endpoint of the service when you get a new phone. As long as you stay in the same ecosystem, if you go from Apple to Apple, you may be happy. That's the idea, right? You take your data, right? Try doing that from Apple to Android or vice versa. That is pretty hard. Although Apple has created an Android conversion tool. I haven't used it, but it may be working. But that is in my, I don't think that those are all point solutions that are not meant by this. What this means is make sure it's stored in an open format. It's available in an open product so that anybody can create tools to transport the data over. Now, the first two points, as obvious as they may seem, but they probably kill 90% of the services that you're already using, right? So think of that. And we're sort of a geeky room here, right? We still have lots of services that probably comply to these rules because that's what we do, right? But on the other hand, just talk to lay people or if I talk to my kids, they don't care, right? They think email is crap, right? They do Snapchat or what have you because that's what everybody else does. Now, what about trust in this whole thing and security? You know, there's an interesting discussion around PGP in the email world, right? Or end-to-end encryption. You know, we all are saying you should really be using end-to-end encryption, then you don't need to trust anybody in the middle, right? That is correct. The problem is it makes using these things so difficult that nobody is using them. Now, what we're really discussing is the trust chain. Because we're not trusting the provider, we want to do end-to-end encryption. If we would have a provider that we trust, right, we could have the server do the complex task of key management and things like that. We've created such a thing for our application, for our mail application called OX Guard so you can do one click PGP and Crip, but you have to trust the provider. If you want to do key management on the client, you can do that as well. There's tools for that. But that is too hard to use for most people. I mean, the usage rates just so that you know, right, for key management on the client is below 0.1%. We have 200 million users on our systems worldwide that we know of. It's very low. You know, when you have the server do it, at least you get to encryption rates of about 10% of the emails that people are sending when it's simple. So we've improved it. It's not perfect. But what this is really about is trust in the provider. And that's what the third rule is about. What about if you lose trust in the provider you have? You'd look for another one. So you need to be able to switch and take your data with you. What about you not finding another one? But there is nobody that you trust. Or you've become really paranoid or really famous and you better make sure that you have full control over your data. You must be able to either launch your own provider or do it yourself. So really paranoid, you just run this thing yourself. And then you're back to end to end because now you're running it yourself. And, you know, even our phones today are little servers, right? You can run it on your phone if you feel like it. But that must be simple. And that is only possible if the service that you're using is also available in software. So, but really think of it. I mean, Wikipedia is a good example, right? Wikipedia is perfect. Because not only, you know, is it open and is it under proper licenses, but also the software is available as a tool by and in itself. But in that, what you can download is the same thing that they're using for running Wikipedia. That's the principle. So if you feel like running your own Wikipedia, you can do that, right? Because the data is available as well as the software. You need a few big servers, lots of hard drives. But you can do that. Now, of course, rule number four should be obvious. It's a little softened here, right? I should be saying it must be free and Libre software. I'm not saying that deliberately because it may be asking too much. But it should be available in source code because otherwise we would have still to trust the maker of the software. Talking about the trust chain, right? How do we deal with end-to-end system secure? We have to do the heavy lifting complicated stuff server. But at the same time, if the important part of the software is we would have to trust the maker of that software and that we can't do that anymore, we know since Snowden latest. Or put it another way, we can be pretty sure that there's bad things in famous software that everybody needs. So with these four simple rules, it can make it a little more aggressive, that's fine. You know, it must be free Libre software under proper certified open source licenses, that's fine. But really what this means is we have full transparency in the stack up and down, right? We create freedom of choice in the service providers that you're using and at any time you can switch and or become your own service provider. Simple enough, right? That transports the rules that we've sort of come up with for software into the cloud age and the cloud age is here, right? We're in the middle of it. I mean, you can say it's only somebody else's computer, yes, but a lot of the things that we're using every day are running from somebody else's computer. And how do we make sure that we use services that we can trust that's the way we do this? And by the way, that's a huge business opportunity too. This is how open exchange makes all their money because we are enabling providers to run their own, you know, mail infrastructures, productivity infrastructures, storage replication infrastructures, you know, synchronization and these things. And they can do it without us, like many, many do. You know, even police of lower Saxony, Anita Saxon, runs all 50,000 police officers on the system, right? And they've just done that. Some people, you know, like untypically, that's unbiased. Runs it, of course, you know, government will be careful with what service they're using, how they build it, run their own. I think companies like Dr. Telecom or one-in-one Strato as well. And for some, like Vodafone that I mentioned or even big U.S. companies, believe it or not, like Cox Communications or Comcast, we run the systems for them. And that makes us even more money. And that creates a virtuous circle, you know, of companies building trustable services that transport the free and open idea of software into the cloud world. And this is sort of the inspiration I wanted to give you for whatever you're up to doing. You know, think not only of the software that you're building. The software is always the foundation of great services. But maybe also think of, you know, creating trustable services and software that creates trustable services. Because I believe that's where a lot of the future lies. Should there be a fifth commandment that it should run on every kind of hardware? Usually, free software does that, right? If I don't know of much free software that is not high on the access. I mean, some doesn't run on Windows, like I was running those servers. But for the rest of it, I think it's taken care of. So I didn't put it there as a special item. And to some degree, the answer to that one is if you give me the source code, I'll port it to the machine you need it on. Right? I'll charge you money for that. Or you port it yourself if you're really... I mean, like our DoveCut iMap, I mean, that runs on everything. And we find it, you know, on Boxlight. I just found that almost all the NAS boxes that have an email service run it in some kind of modified version. And some of these go down to very small CPUs. So... I have a question about, from the perspective of a service provider. So if I want to run a service which conforms to these four rules, for me, it would be very hard to make sure that there is another provider. Because if I'm the only one, I can run a second service, but then I'm still only one provider. So how can I make that sure? I think you as a provider don't need to. Because as long as you're using software that is freely available and open, there is a chance for anybody to become the provider. You may be the only one. That's fine. And you have a good life for a while. If you're really successful in your business, you can be sure there will be another one eventually. So it's not... I don't think it's the responsibility of the provider to make sure there's... Okay, and then related to that, if I'm running a service, how do I make sure that people actually can trust me? Even if I release software as open source software, as free software, and I say, okay, this is the software I run, still people have to trust me that it's actually the software I run. And I don't want to have a mechanism for people to log into the server and check it because that wouldn't be secure. So how do I create this trust in the first place? So how do you create trust? There's no easy answer to that. I mean, it's the typical trust between human beings. Because I know you for 20 years and you've never screwed up and you've never done wrong on me. So I trust you. Of course, there could be technical means to prove that the binaries that you're running on the server are actually that software on GitHub, right? That is thinkable. It's not, I mean, fairly straightforward. So it always goes back to trusting the human beings that provide the service or the companies that provide the service. For example, if a company has a lot to lose when they screw up, right? You can say, the incentive is very high for them not to be crooks, right? Or you can say, oh, this company is under the jurisdiction of XYZ. And I know the jurisdiction of XYZ has really tough penalties on the managers of the companies in case they screw up, right? Because of telecommunications, cosets or something, right? So yeah, it's no simple answer. It's still a messy thing because we're humans, I guess. That's a pity because actually, when I run things of them, I said, I can be sure without any trust. Yes, and you still can do that, right? I mean, I'm not, but I guess us here in the room probably have a slightly elevated security profile because we're just paranoid. So you run your own software and continue to do so. That's fine, but most people don't, right? I'm trying to catch the other 99.9%. So proclaiming this commandment is pretty nice, but how do you actually put this in practice? So Reinhardt Geburt is a law. So for beer, this is solved. Actually, this is a stupid law in my eyes. For beer, at least. But so there's four commandments. I mean, you have this network effect. So even if you start a service now for Shad and have all this in place, so basically you have now something like email, open protocols and so on for Shad. So everybody starts using it. But then another snapshot comes on and all the teenagers will jump on that because it's cool and nice to use. So basically, you have to move there too because all your friends are there. So you have this networking effect. So how to put this into practice? We have to build smart companies. I don't think we, I mean, it should be a law for government, near government and things like that, I believe, right? I think, and we're seeing this coming up in countries that the governments are saying, you know, whatever we pay, we want to be free, right? And I think the same, I think the government should say any service that we use should comply to these laws, right? Because we have a special responsibility. But I think it's the economy that needs to deal with this. And we have to build smart companies that can compete with the other guys. I mean, there is no reason that the next snapshot cannot be open. There is no reason, right? We can do that. I mean, we can do that, but we have to compete, you know, with the software that the other guys are making. And, you know, we can say what we want, but it is pretty good software and pretty good services. And that's the challenge, right? I mean, we can be arrogant and say, hey, look, we're better because we're open, right? Because we're organic and fair trade and what have you. So we're the good guys. Of course, we're the good guys. But at the same time, you know, the stuff that we built needs to be as good as the one that we're trying to replace. All right, one more, Matz. One thing is the internet started with these rules, basically. Mail works this way. Jobber, if you want, works this way. And we are actually moving away from this model in the recent times. And my problem is how do we manage to get back to this model? Because the problem is social, it's not technical, because the technology to do this is as easy as the silos. Yes. I mean, you know, I mean, email is still around. I can tell you, right? Yes, but when I ask our photographs from our friend, they try to send it with the WhatsApp or whatever. And I send it by mail because it's as easy as sending my WhatsApp or Instagram or whatever, because it's the same. It's not the same. You know, it's not as easy, because otherwise they would be doing it. Actually, you have a share button and you have that you can choose between mail and your... Yeah, you and I know that, right? But they've got this learned behavior that on a mobile phone, they're only doing WhatsApp and they don't even have mail control on mobile phones. My kids, I know, you know, they're 16 and 20, right? That's the problem. No, I think we, you know, and I can point at myself, right? We're making, you know, mail applications and backends and stuff, right? So we have to make this easier, right? And better and create a better user experience. Yes, but then you have to promote it and make... Yeah, but we have good partners, like you sound like you're from Italy, correct? Italy Online has become a customer of ours. You know, that's 13 million email accounts and we've created that feature for them, which simply says, you know, attach whatever you want, right? We're not sending it as an attachment because sending, you know, 20 terabytes as an attachment is not a great idea, but instead we're putting it into the cloud storage. That's also there and send a link, right? So it's all automatic, right? So, and you're just sending a link, Ben, right? And the recipient clicks on the link and gets into the system, right? The data stays on the server. We are not filling up the hops and it's easy to use. So that is really the answer. I mean, the companies like us, you know, have to think on how we can improve the system such that people are actually using it so that we let the network effect work for ourselves. Otherwise, nothing will happen. People will continue to use the proprietary ones. Okay, I think we're done. We're cutting into our lunch break, yeah. Short question. Okay. One more, okay. Nobody seems hungry much. I'm sorry for delaying by five minutes, the lunch. Just, I see the comments here. I just have a short question because I don't see anything related to the licensing because free software, you know, we give users rights and legally we do that by giving them a license to the source code. So they can use it, reproduce it, share it, improve on it. And I don't see anything about the licensing here. So I'm just wondering, you know, copy left, non-copy left, what's your idea on that? Should we actually have a commandment for copy left? There, I'm not saying we should, maybe we shouldn't. But what's your idea on that? Well, obviously it's not to have it here. But I'm totally open to that discussion. The reason it's not here is that we have to compete with real rich businesses. And I think it's a good idea to let people figure out their own business models. And software licenses, you know, preclude too much of the business model. Say it's to be a copy left, for example, right? It includes your abilities in terms of what you can do as a business model. So what about non-copy left then, but free software? Same thing, precludes certain things that you cannot or can do with the business model. So for example, let me give you one very controversial answer and everybody will hate me in this room for this. You know, our application software that we call App Suite, which is the mail client, the office productivity stuff and so forth, you know, all the JavaScript code is under a creative commons non-commercial license, share like license. So why is that? Now, the reason is that very large telcos and host companies use our great paid service to charge you for some kind of premium mail. Or they buy the mail clients with the domain that you buy at Strato. Now, how do we make sure that the customers that pay us for our services stay competitive with the ones that don't? Because the ones that pay us will always be at a price disadvantage when they do that. So the creative commons non-commercial was the only license that we found back in the day and it's not a software license. Laurence Lessig sent us an email saying, don't use it for software. I said, but Laurence, your license is under the CC so I can use it for what I want, right? Yeah. Yeah. Because that's the only thing, it allows commercial use inside companies so anybody can use it still. You know, the source code is available. You have to be careful with words here, right? But it limits you charging for a service on that software and that's exactly what we wanted to do. But if there would be an easy answer, we wouldn't be doing that crap, right? We didn't wanna come up with our own open exchange, what have you license because there's too many of that around anyway, right? And that's sort of the complicated, longer answer to your question. I don't wanna preclude business models. You know, for the back ends, we use GPLs, right? That's even more, even freer licenses than that because that's easy enough. That's, you know, there is no commercial exploitation of the back end bind in itself but when you create application software and maybe that's a reason why, to be honest, there's not that much great end user application software that is free out there, right? Maybe that's the reason because it really just makes it hard to make money with it and eventually you starve, right? Or you have a company that, you know, makes money in a different way and can afford the freeness of this. So short answer is we didn't wanna preclude any business models, we're just saying the source code needs to be there because that's the trust thing, right? This is here to make sure you have end-to-end trust. You can have end-to-end trust to a system, right? I wish it was an easier answer on the licensing side but I guess there is another 15 years of work ahead of us to fix that, right? I like it. Exactly, that's what available. Yeah, yeah, you know that. Okay. Yes, yes, yes. Okay. Stop now once. Yeah. Thank you, Raffaella Guna. Thank you.