 Hi, everybody. So my talk is sort of taking an economic lens on the general kind of concept of commercialization in the context of open source software. And this is something I've been thinking about for going on close to 10 years. I worked at an early data integration ETL software company called Taland. How many people have heard of Taland if I can sort of see? Wow, that's actually a lot of hands. About 10 years ago. And they were one of the sort of very early open core companies. And so Sid talked about that a little bit and the sort of buyer based open core model. One of the things I like to start with, since there's very little agreement in the industry around terminology, is defining commercial open source software. And so I like to say commercial open source software company is a company that fundamentally depends on a given open source software project as the core building block justifying the company's existence. So there's a tight relationship between the company and the project. And this is really the crux of the definition. There's nothing else. This is business model agnostic. This is agnostic to the type of technology and so on. But fundamentally defining this kind of company, I believe was an important sort of mental exercise for me. Since I believe if you sort of boil things down to the extremes, there's exactly two types of software companies or technology companies that sort of fundamentally software companies. There are commercial open source software companies as defined by this definition. And there are fundamentally proprietary software companies. And so we'll kind of get into the differences. Here are some examples of commercial open source software companies. GitLab is one. And so Sid was explaining sort of their journey of iterating around their business model. There's many other commercial open source software companies in the world. Company behind Drupal, Aquia, the company that supports and scales and manages WordPress as a service. Obviously Confluent hosts Kafka and other creators of Kafka. So the sort of relationship between the company and the project is very fundamental. So for example, if you removed the company, the project would continue to exist. But if you removed the project, the company would no longer exist. So the sort of reason for being in the fundamental existence of the company is caused by the existence of the core project. And these are really just a few example companies. One of the things I've been doing for several years, five or six years, is sort of maintaining a spreadsheet of successful companies based on commercial open source as a model. And so commercial open source software companies. And if we look back just five years, which is a very short period of time, but a huge amount of change has occurred in the industry. We only had really two companies in the industry that were generating significant revenue that had large scalable businesses based on this commercial open source model. Again, remember I mentioned this is business model agnostic. Though those two companies were Mozilla Corporation and Red Hat. So Red Hat generates a significant amount of revenue based on commercializing Linux, many other projects, but mostly Linux, and Mozilla for the Firefox web browser. Those two businesses had about $100 million in revenue and increasing, obviously Red Hat more, but they were really the only two significant businesses in 2013. At this point, we have over 40 companies in the world that generate over $100 million in revenue at a baseline, a minimum $100 million in revenue, and that are defined as commercial open source software companies. This is probably a totally eligible snapshot spreadsheet, but you can go and find this on the internet. It's a public Google spreadsheet. It's regularly updated by contributors and people who add comments, but I've sort of been geeking about this spreadsheet for many years, and it sort of represents the change we've seen in the license models, the business models, the projects that might be in a foundation like Linux Foundation or Apache or others, and also sort of looks into the relationship between when the project was created and when the company itself was also created and founded. In some cases, the projects and companies were founded simultaneously. Other cases, the project became public before the company was founded. In some cases, the open source project was actually published after the founding of the company, and so we kind of look at a lot of different dimensions here. And the interesting things that I've noticed here are most of the large successful businesses have really materialized just obviously over the last four, five, six years, and this is a really significant shift. If you look at the value of all of these companies, it's sort of somewhat similar to the value of the cloud computing market, maybe by a factor of two or three, but it's actually somewhat of a younger category if you were to categorize it, so that the total revenue these businesses generate just on the top 40 that have 100 million in revenue is close to $18 billion a year, and this is mostly software, subscription, hosted offering-based revenue, and there's 47,000 commercial open source software employees, actually full-time employed by these companies, so companies behind projects like Apache Hadoop and Magento, OpenStack, Mule USB, Puppet, Taland, Kafka, and many others, and also the venture industry has heavily funded these companies, but they haven't quite appropriated for why these companies are fundamentally different. This is just sort of a graph, as I mentioned, there were only two of these companies in 2013, now we have 40, the list has grown pretty substantially, and then the sort of green bar indicates the growth of the overall size of the index itself, so this is just kind of a snapshot of the last five, six years of data. If you'd like to see this spreadsheet, it's online, I kind of chose a funny URL, it's just OSS, like open source software, .cash, so cash, like cash money, not cash invalidation. So I'd like to focus on this and then kind of wrap up the talk. I've been thinking about this quite a long time and it's sort of my mental framing for the fundamental differences between proprietary software companies or fundamentally proprietary software companies and how we define commercial open source software companies. At a fairly reductionist level, businesses create value and then they capture some of the value they create, and if you look at the column on the left, which is the value creation variable, the value creation column, what we do is we compare the inputs into value creation for fundamentally proprietary software companies and we compare those inputs to commercial open source software companies, so what I tend to think of is the cause of value creation for fundamentally proprietary software companies tends to be concentrated on three properties that have a great impact on that value creation variable. Venture funding typically, so hiring engineers, building the product, raising more capital to distribute the product. Centralized R&D, which is the engineers and the product people and everyone who's sort of bringing that product to market have to work for that company. They're employed full time by that company. And then thirdly, the distribution cost and the burden for that is also carried by the company. If you compare those inputs into value creation to commercial open source, interestingly commercial open source has almost the exact opposite properties. Commercial open source companies in many cases in order to create huge amounts of value, successful cases like the ones in the spreadsheet we looked at, oftentimes raise zero capital. Projects like Git and Linux and Kubernetes and Kafka and Hadoop and many others were actually either subsidized by large internet infrastructure technology companies or they were created out of academia or they were created as side projects and hobbyist projects and ultimately created huge amounts of value for an ecosystem. We also see that the R&D aspects of these companies are fundamentally decentralized and the distribution costs are actually disaggregated across an ecosystem of participants and so this is sort of the instant free distribution. Value capture I think is where people sort of have a big set of kind of fractional perspectives and polarization and lack of consensus, lack of agreement. What I tend to sort of look at is for value capture with fundamentally proprietary software companies there's really only two constituents capturing value, the vendor who created the product and the customer who pays the vendor to access the product in some way. With commercial open source, the big difference here is value capture is fundamentally permissionless and it's distributed across many constituents. So you have cloud providers capturing value, you have hardware companies capturing value, you have developers capturing value, you have governments, enterprises and this value capture is fragmented in many different ways but what I believe is commercial open source software creates more value than any single constituent can capture and as a result the best sort of business model is one that materializes through properties of emergence and through iteration much like how CID described GitLab finding their business model over time and I'd just like to leave you with this thought and something that I tend to think about a lot and try to encourage other people to think about which is that open source software creates vastly more value than any single commercial constituent can materially capture and I believe that's a good thing for a world of abundance and innovation and it's a good thing for driving technology, iteration speed and also for end users, communities and ecosystems. We've seen lots of potentially negative and hostile relationships between different constituents that capture value around open source and I believe we'd be better off living in a world where everyone can collaborate and partner and commercialize in ways that they can differentiate with their customers but ultimately are better for the community and the ecosystem and I think ultimately large successful businesses can be built as a result so that's what I'd like to leave you with. Thank you. Thank you. That's awesome, I really appreciate it. There's not a ton of academic research, modern academic research that hasn't been done like 10 years ago on value capture, on measuring economic outputs of open source particularly things that are kind of off the balance sheet of like an M&A transaction or IPS so the work you're doing is awesome and kind of thinking about that I think will spur a lot of people to go really look deeper so thanks a ton for coming. Thanks.