 All right, people, quiet. Thank you. Well, good morning, Fozdem. So it's a celebration year this year. This year, free software is 35 years old. And that's one of the things I'm celebrating, but today specifically, February the 3rd, is the day that Christine Peterson first proposed the words open source as the slogan or the name for a marketing program for free software to help it get adopted by businesses in the way that in 1998 Mozilla had just been created as a project. There were a whole group of people who felt that that was the time that free software was ready to move into the business sector. And so there is another celebration today, which is today is the 20th anniversary of the start of the open source movement in software. My name's Simon Phipps. I am the president of the open source initiative. And I've got my colleague Itala Vinyali over here, who is my bodyguard and the co-director of the organization. And he'll step in when I flake out. So let's just look back before open source. And before open source, there were two significant movements in what we now call free software and open source. There was the BSD movement, and that's why Bill Joy is on the screen there. And in many ways, that was the progenitor of what is now open source. Taking BSD Unix and using it very successfully for commercial purposes. And then on the other coast, there was Richard Storman. Richard Storman being very irritated to have his rights abridged in connection with some software and deciding that he would do something about it. And he codified the idea of being thoroughly decent to each other into four freedoms, which in my words, rather than his, are the freedom to use software for any purpose, the freedom to study it and understand it, the freedom to improve it so that it better fits your needs or the needs of people you care about, and the freedom to share the original or modified versions with whoever you wish. And those four freedoms are resonant of other attempts to codify freedom in the history of philosophy, and they still ring true today as the core of what makes software succeed in the 21st century. Now for a whole variety of reasons, that idea was beginning to be adopted in the mid-1990s. I was working for IBM in the mid-1990s and I worked on a project involving the Java programming language. And although people tend to be cautious about referring to Java in the same breath as open source, the release of Java in 1995 showed the power of releasing software freely with the permissions provided. It was revolutionary to put the source code of a new product on the internet, which itself was only about three years old in public terms. The source code of Java was published freely in 1995 and it was that that led to its massive adoption in business and that made it clear to everybody that using openness as a business tool actually had some legs. And so the movement gradually grew and by 1998 it became obvious to a whole group of people that there was the need for a way to explain free software to business in terms of its benefits rather than in terms of its ethics. This is not to say that the ethics were irrelevant. People have ethics, should have ethics, and should live by them. But corporations live by bylaws and by shareholder benefit and you can't persuade a corporation to be ethical because corporations aren't people. They're much closer to reptiles, in fact. There's an essay about that if you want to go look it up. And so a group of people decided to start a marketing program for free software and Bruce Perens, who's one of the founders of ISI explained recently in a blog post that open source is the proper name of a campaign to promote the pre-existing concept of free software to business and to certify licenses to a rule set. I want to make it absolutely clear that from the beginning open source and free software were never intended to be different things. Now there were some people who had a grudge against the GPL and Richard Stallman who wanted to make you think that and some of them got involved in the early life of the open source movement. But today, open source is back in this place. It is a marketing program for free software. It is ground for collaboration. It is what unites us rather than what should divide us. It is there providing a signal about the difference between freedom and commerce. This is the Doc Cranes in New Jersey and Statue of Liberty, obviously. Statue of Liberty in her famous pose, Signalling Liberty. I believe this has been discontinued in America now, but the Doc Cranes are in the same posture. They want you to think that commerce is the same thing as liberty. And we discover in the four freedoms that actually commerce and liberty are a little different. They're connected and there is no point in diminishing either of them, but they're different things. You have to guard them. Open source as a concept, I believe, was wildly successful. I believe that it was the key to helping software users and developers advance software freedom at work as well as in their private time. And I don't know how many people here are working or actually paid salaries because of free software. How many? Just get some away. How many people? That's a lot of people. How many people wish their salaries were paid by free software? Okay, that's everybody else. It turns out that open source was the key to unlock the move of software freedom into business. And so we started the first decade of open source at the end of the 1990s. I would say that that first decade was characterized by advocacy. It was punky advocacy. It was willing to call companies what they really were. It was willing to publish the Halloween letters on a website and harass Microsoft. It was willing to say rude things to people, sometimes to nice people. And it was also characterized by the evolution of open source licensing. And it was characterized by endless, endless debate about open source business models. Now, to be clear, open source projects don't have a business model. Companies have business models. Open source projects have developers and collaboration. And so there was a lot of confusion in this decade where people thought about the business model too much and thought about the community too little and tried to exploit licensing to try and advantage that. Back then, OSI was pretty clear. It was in existence to be the steward of the open source definition and to be the nexus of deciding which licenses actually delivered the four freedoms. The way that OSI went about that was by having Bruce Perrin take the Debian Free Software Guidelines and adapt them into a set of rules called the open source definition to decide which licenses deliver on the four freedoms and which don't. And I believe this was crucial to the success of open source because it meant that we as developers don't have to go ask a lawyer if that license gives us the freedoms that we need to collaborate with the other people in the community. And by having that consensus of all of the people in the open source community that these licenses are okay and we can safely collaborate with them and, well, the other licenses I'm not so sure about by gathering that consensus in, crystallizing it and remembering it, the open source definition created the freedom to make open source software all over the world. And I think that was crucial. A few things happened in that decade. Let's have a little look through here. OSI was formed. Linux was apparently a cancer. There was a whole load of new licenses. Came out in 2002. SCO sued IBM. I was just chatting to somebody a moment ago about how all the crooks all flood in whenever there's a big money opportunity. They're doing it now in cryptocurrency and they did it then in the world of Linux where there was obviously an opportunity. The Halloween documents kind of got boring around 2004. Unix went open source in 2005 in the shape of San Solaris. We did some stuff around open standards. We're going to come back to that. Did you know there's a thing called the open standards requirement for open source software? It was extensively discussed in 2005 and we thought we'd put the subject to bed but it's coming back. It's woken up and looking for its cookies. Java became open source. I was one of the people involved in doing that. That was cool. By the end of that decade most CIOs understood the idea of open source and most of them thought it was a benefit. There were still a few who thought it wasn't. The things that made open source succeed were first of all that crystallization of consensus about which licenses are okay. Secondly, the idea of those licenses being the consensus of a community about what freedoms are needed rather than grounds for a lawsuit and finally, the idea of communities creating safe spaces where the mutual interests of the participants were insulated from each other. That crystallization of consensus process the way that works is well, a while back someone accused OSI of trying to play king. It was, you know, who died and made you king of licenses, they said to us. And I thought about that well, we're not actually the king of licenses. We're more the speaker of the house of licenses. We get all of the delegates of the community which is, well, all of you if you want to and we all discuss whether a given open source license delivers the four freedoms and then somebody summarizes that discussion and if there's no dissent the OSI board then vote that license is open source or to say actually the consensus was that we didn't think it was open source. OSI doesn't actually decide which licenses are open source, it crystallizes the consensus of the community that gathers on the license discussed mailing list. And that's what gives it its power because it isn't my opinion about which licenses are okay. By the way, if you're a corporate lawyer it doesn't do you any good to contact the president of OSI and ask for help getting your license approved. Because, actually I don't really, I only have one vote and my one vote is cast along with the other ten directors and the directors only cast their vote after they've been given the consensus from the conversational and license discuss and so that's not the way you get your license approved. In fact if you come and ask me for help that's a reasonably good indicator that your license isn't going to get approved. Secondly about licenses, now if you're involved in business you know that licenses are the grounds for lawsuits or rather they are the peace treaty between two reptiles about who is going to get to control the territory. And it turns out that open source licenses are sometimes taken that way. Sometimes people think that an open source license needs negotiating or needs discussing between the parties who are involved. I don't believe it's like that Eben once said that licenses are constitutions for communities and I very much agree with that as an idea. I think an open source license is the multilateral consensus of the permissions and norms of a community. And this is why another word to anyone who's involved in corporate open source this is why gaming the license makes people hate you. It's because the license is not the thing. The community is the thing. The license is simply the summary of the freedoms that the community needs. And so if you go in and game the license and your game doesn't reflect the behavior of the community then everybody will hate what you are doing. And that's the reason why so many people dislike it when companies like VMware decide to mess with software in violation of the way that the community feels it should go. Forget whether they're doing it legally or illegally, they're doing it dishonorably and that's the reason they should stop doing it. Unfortunately they're a corporation and not a person and you know what corporations are. Open source communities also create safe spaces. The exemplar of this in many ways is the Apache Software Foundation. It creates a space in which the control points of what's called intellectual property are defanged. Their poison is taken away. Where the business models of the participants are left outside the room. And where code is made available even if I don't know you. I do hear some people who worry that their code is going to be used in a way that they don't like. I'd suggest to you that if that's one of your fears that you don't make it open source in the first place. Because one of the points of open source is to make code available for the unknown others. It is okay to go into a code base and pick up the algorithm that they're using for whatever. It is great to go harvest body organs from big open source projects and build your own zombie. That is the whole point of open source is that you're able to do whatever you want with the code. And if that's what you want to do saying that people shouldn't do that because they're not contributing to the project is kind of somehow strange. And so we protect that right of code for the unknown others along with the idea of getting the control points out and of getting control points out. There are a number of control points. I've got a useful acronym for intellectual property down there if you can work out what it is. Intellectual property needs mitigating in open source communities. I hear people saying that people are throwing away their IP when they do open source. They're not doing that. What they're doing is they're leveraging their IP and they're leveraging their IP to enable a community to collaborate. If your business model is advantaged by people collaborating around the code, then you should spend your IP on making that happen. Of course, if your project is your goals are much better achieved by living in splendid isolation and shooting people as they come towards you where you probably don't want to mitigate the IP. And then business models. There's been a whole range of business models down the years. I believe the one that we're looking towards is the bottom one. Assembling complex systems. I'll come on to that in a little while. Open source removes the barriers to collaboration. It creates a safe space. And this is why actually the discussion about codes of conduct is so important to us. Because we need a safe place to contribute as people as well as a safe place to contribute as programmers. And that's the reason we need a better community so that everybody knows that they are entering a place that is safe for them as people as well as programmers. Okay, second decade. By the second decade of open source we will well into the mode of adoption. Open source was in the ascendancy at this point and that the big themes for me during those 10 years were broad enterprise adoption of open source software. Lots of discussions about software patents and a rise in the desire to enforce the GPL against scoff laws who were deciding to intentionally break it. As well as a desire to enforce the GPL against the uneducated who accidentally infringed against it. So far fewer exciting bullets in this decade. It was just all adoption and code for me in that decade. One highlight is Microsoft loving Linux. I thought that was quite a highlight 2015. You'll have to catch me at the booth really to talk about that in any depth. But I think that there are parts of Microsoft that love Linux. The big deal though is that by the end of this decade you could truthfully say that open source was everywhere. You could look at open source and identify it as one of or the dominant patterns in the way that Enterprise and Civil Society software was created and maintained. Let's talk about patents for a bit. What's wrong with software patents? There are all sorts of intellectual reasons why you might dislike giving people a monopoly over an idea. But the real problem in open source with patents is that they break that safe space we were talking about. They create a place where developers have to seek permission in order to innovate. All the things that we did creating open source communities were all about obviating the needs to go ask permission before you innovate. You're supposed to be able to find a handy giant and climb on its shoulders. You shouldn't have to ask a giant first. Patents break that. They mean there are hidden reasons why you always have to go and ask somebody who doesn't know anything about what you're doing if you may have permission to proceed. Developers instinctively mistrust that. Instinctively hate the idea that they're going to do something really clever and then some lawyer is going to show up and demand all of their living in exchange for the right to use the clever thing they just did. And so developers avoid things where they know there are patents unless they're being paid by a corporation to go there of course. And in particular developers avoid standards where there are patents. We've seen it time and time again. We've seen people avoid MPEG. We've seen people avoid MP3. And we're going to continue to see it. Now one of the ways you fix these things is by using open source licenses that have been approved by OSI and have been recently written to deal at least partially with the problem of patents. And for me when I see a company newly deciding to use the BSD or MIT licenses my first reaction is I wonder who they want to sue. I don't know whether you think that. I looked it and I think why would you do that? Why wouldn't you use the Apache license where we can keep the patents out? And so this we discussed this extensively in 2005. We had a long discussion at OSI about the role of patents in standards and open source. And we came up with the open source requirement the open standards requirement for open source. But it turns out that the problem was not settled back in decade one and decade two. The wireless industry in particular back in those decades wasn't really involved in open source. They didn't dramatically get themselves involved in the argument about standards essential patents and open source software. And they have a different way of doing things. In the ICT industry we go through a cycle of we invent we monetize and then we standardize. And standardize is in many ways aware of diminishing the power of the successful implementation. In the wireless industry they work a completely different way. They start out by specifying what a system is going to do and then they ask all of the smartest people in their industry to invent a solution for that specification. And then they pick the best solution and they make that the standard and then everybody implements the standard and the people whose solution was picked get to get paid by patent royalties on the technologies in the standard. It all works very well for them. They're very happy with it and they make a lot of money and they think it's normal. They think it's just as normal as you think it's normal to not have patents on the software that you're working on. And if you were to ever bring these two worlds together you could be sure there would be conflict. You could be sure that if the wireless industry ever decided it wasn't going to work with silicon and wires and aerials and wanted to somehow work with software that there would be a clash of cultures. Now I'm sorry to have to tell you that 5G is bringing those two worlds together and the wireless industry has showed up and wants to make what we're doing impossible. And this is going to be a problem unfortunately. Okay. We'll come back to that point in a minute. The other thing that happened in the second decade was the rise of license enforcement. Now I'm a skeptic when it comes to license enforcement. I think that the outcome of license enforcement is this. You have a perfectly good rock you can't use anymore and a car can't drive. And really I feel that it's very important for people to comply with open source licenses because we already have a word for people who don't satisfy the terms of open source licenses and yet use the software. We call them pirates. So VMware is a pirate and I think it's wrong for them to engage in acts of piracy. Because they are using software in breach of the license and therefore they don't have a copyright license. Now what do you do about that? That's a different question. And I took the slide out. Look at that. What do you do about that? The best thing to do about it is to help them to understand how wicked they are and then to get on with success in a different place. And that sounds very difficult to do. But in open source we are succeeding in so many places that to distract ourselves by deciding that we're going to focus on a particular even a particular malevolent pirate I believe diminishes us. And so you can tell that I'm a skeptic on this subject. However I think it's perfectly reasonable if you are part of an open source project that wants to go and use a lawsuit to enforce your project for you to do that. And so I'm not going to stop you doing it but I'm probably not going to help. So end of two decades. Yesterday was the end of the two decades and the lessons so far. First of all we're now operating under new rules. The signs that were all put up before the open source revolution started are no longer valid. Secondly the real value of open source it's to innovate without having to ask it's to start where others have reached it's to stay in control of your own resources while you're doing that it's to share in the upkeep of your innovation so that you can move on to new innovation it's to influence global ecosystems with your software in a way that was beyond the reach of individual developers before open source and it's also to be protected from other people who are doing that as well. Now all of those things are derived from software freedom. Software freedom is the key to all of those commercial values that open source was coined to embody. I'd say that new technologies these days are only possible with open source. If you want to do cloud and you want to be able to make it scale unless you happen to own every last piece of copyright in the stack you're almost certainly going to have to use open source. That by the way is why Microsoft loves Linux. If you're going to do an IOT device the chances are you can't afford to pay a royalty on every single Raspberry Pi that ever might be used to do the thing that you're going to do and you have to use open source. It's hard to imagine how you would do these things without it. And so we're coming into this third decade of open source with open sources the default. Open source is the software approach that you need if you're going to do cool new things. So the question has to arise of well you know what's coming next. Well the first thing that's coming is that OSI has changed. We started out being an organization that simply was the steward of the open source definition and the steward of the license list. Today we're kind of the association of open source associations. We have a large number of affiliates. This is a selection of them and we will be very pleased for your project to join OSI so that we can help connect you with other projects and so that when necessary we can represent you in places where you find it harder to have a voice. I'll be talking a little bit about that in a moment. Some other things that are coming. Here's my five predictions for the decade. First prediction is that I think we're going to see a gradual change of community styles. In the first decade communities were all about enthusiasts. It was that first decade that started FOSDEM. FOSDEM still embodies that relaxed atmosphere of individual participation and contribution. And that first decade was very much characterized by individual projects and by the enthusiasm of individuals. That rapidly changed into a world of professional specialists and of projects hosted in charities. And in the third decade I think we're going to gradually move into a world where most software is professional generalists working with software that's hosted in consortia. Now that may not be the world that you want to see, but I unfortunately see it very much happening. It's a world of the Linux Foundation and of OpenStack and of large consortia of software projects come together under a set of common community terms. And that suits a world where people are dealing with that whole stack of software. That isn't to say that the earlier approaches are diminished or are going away. There is still plenty of scope for a focused kernel hacker. There is still plenty of scope to have a project which is focused around a community of individuals who have little commercial motivation. But we're going to increasingly see this third mode becoming the dominant mode. And as that happens, I believe we need to create cultures of contribution because the thing that happens in that world of professional generalists and consortia is that you begin to take some of the projects for granted. You can only contribute to so many projects and you begin to take projects for granted. You begin to neglect projects that aren't very exciting. You begin to neglect projects that you haven't had to improve. And so I believe that in our work lives we need to cultivate cultures of contribution. We need to encourage people wherever they are using OpenSource to think about how they can participate in its community. Possibly financially, preferably in a social way. Social contribution is documentation, bug fixing, case studies, use cases, or possibly with code. The second change that's happening is I think that we'll see fewer and fewer single project companies. In the first decade the big focus was on OpenSource business models. And really every entrepreneur was busy trying to work out how they could create their company that was going to embrace OpenSource and succeed. In the second decade we gradually saw more and more people working with a more diverse community with projects with multiple companies involved in them with a release train model indicating that there were many voices that had to be respected rather than a release when ready which tends to lead towards the strongest voice controlling the project. And in that world I think the business model that's going to become dominant this decade is the complex assembly of simple parts. I think we're going to see more and more businesses where all of the software they're using is OpenSource but the product that they're selling is putting it all together in a stack that you can use. Not necessarily hosted in the cloud but also hosted in your enterprise and that skill of knowing how to put the parts together how to configure them how to keep them running and how to make them scale with demand is I believe going to become the core of the future business models during this third decade leading to hopefully beautiful things. In this decade I think we're going to see new problems with licensing. We're going to see two kinds of problems with licensing. In the first decade everyone wanted their own license. If you look in the license archive you'll see all sorts of licenses like the IBM public license which arose in that decade. IBM took their name out of the license called it the common public license it was still basically the same license just didn't say IBM everyone wanted to do that. People worked out that wasn't such a good idea in the second decade and the focus in the second decade gradually became compliance with reciprocal licenses. And the whole industry grew up what has been called the compliance industrial complex has gradually grown up with tooling and great big threats of fear around compliance. In the third decade I think we're going to see more and more of a problem with attribution license compliance. It turns out that those so-called permissive licenses that you're using do actually have a requirement in them which if you don't comply with it means that you are a pirate and that requirement is that you give attribution to the previous authors of the code that you're using. And it turns out that probably it probably doesn't keep a very good record of who worked on the code before you imported it into your version control system. And it only keeps a modest job of who's contributing to the code while it's in the version control system. It's very hard to pull out that statement as a block of text to put into a documentation. I believe we'll see the rise of the attribution troll during the coming decade. And I think we now understand how to comply with the GPL. We now understand how to do that and if you want to do it, you can do it. Which does rather imply that actually if you're not compliant with the GPL you know that you're not doing it and you really are an awful person. But when it comes to attribution licenses, I think we're going to be faced with some challenges. So the way you do that is you accumulate all of the history around the work that you're doing and you make sure you've always got a record of everyone who's touched the code so that you can attribute to them correctly. Look in the license to see how you should attribute to them. It may be the license isn't terribly clear in those cases probably whatever you decide to do that publicly gives attribution is probably okay but do ask an expert particularly if you're worth suing. And I recommend you only use OSI approved licenses. Now the reason I recommend that to you is I've found that the people who argue with the OSI license review process most often are people who would like to use a license that OSI wouldn't possibly approve. There are people who would like to put in a patent rider in there that lets them charge royalties on patents that are embodied in the software. There are people who want to put a time limit on how long you can use the software for. There are people who want to put a limitation on what you can use it for. And they tend to say oh open source that's just a descriptive term isn't it? No one has the right to tell me whether my license is okay. I suggest to you a biometric indicator of a problem is a company in particular that says that open source is just words and we can use any license we want to that we think meets the open source definition. I suggest you only use OSI approved licenses. There are like 70 of them so you should be able to find one that's okay and that will help protect you from some of the problems that are going to arise from the new world of licensing. In this decade I also think we're going to rediscover software freedom. In the first decade of open source open source was very strong on being amoral. It was not immoral but it was very strong on being amoral and keeping discussions of morality and ethics out of the business of persuading businesses to use open source software. In the second decade open source was happy to live in a world of ethics and morals but really was very pragmatic. Wanted to have those discussions in the pub wanted to get on with the software at work. I believe in the third decade we're going to rediscover the power of the ethical basis of software freedom. The reason for that is we're going to start encountering areas where it's not easy to see how open source applies. I think I've probably got a little longer than that. In the coming decade I believe that we're going to deal with new problems that require us to go back to first principles. Go back to saying are we making the software available for people to study? Are we making the software available for any purpose? Are we actually giving individuals the freedom to tinker with the code? The answer to those questions diagnose what our stance towards the public should be. They diagnose what our stance towards our code and towards its licensing should be. They help us to fix problems in open source hardware. To fix problems in cloud computing. I believe that if we don't do that we're going to come back to the mistakes that we had to deal with in the first and second decades. We're going to have to deal with people who forget that licenses are not the core of open source. That actually freedom is the core of open source and people exercising it. And the licenses are just the rules about how that should happen. I also hope that OSI is going to have some new roles. In the first decade we were all about approving licenses. In the second decade we were all about not approving licenses. By the way, if you do want to get a new license approved I've got some advice for you. Please don't try it. Really, you get a very rough reception. Most of them have been tried. And the ones that haven't been tried haven't been tried for really good reasons. We're pretty much done on licenses. Maintenance, yes. Probably not. But you could maybe prove me wrong and come up with something incredibly innovative. So in the third decade we're focusing much more on communities and on authenticity. We're very keen to connect communities together, to bridge between worlds. And I believe we need to do that more than ever at the moment. I'd encourage you to join, and this is an American terminology of course, I encourage you to join charities as well as trade associations. Your employer might well believe that you should be focusing on trade associations like the Linux Foundation and OpenStack. Those are organizations run for the benefit of the companies that are paying to be participants. But Open Source relies on charities as well. It relies on the Software Freedom Conservancy. It relies on the FFF. It relies on OSI. We each have distinctive and important roles to play in creating the environment where the organizations in the first bullet are able to succeed. And we need you to support us. We need you to join. We need you to be active and to participate in the programs and campaigns that we have. So please do that and please promote them with your employers. Please ask your employers to become sponsors of the OSI or to become patrons of the OSI. We need you to do that because in this decade I believe we're going to need to return to our services more than ever. So that third decade lifestyle cultures of contribution create them. Business models, complex assembly of parts. Remember that to deal with compliance you need to do more than make an offer of source. You need to accumulate details of who contributed to this. You need to cherish software freedom and put it at the heart of your thinking and don't think that open is the answer software freedom is the answer. Open is simply the marketing program to make your employer let you talk about it. And cultivate charities as well as trade associations. Software freedom remains the essential core of software in the 21st century. Software freedom will succeed will do open source right. They will do it in terms of giving freedom to people and they will do it in terms of creating communities that are safe places for innovation and safe places for socialization. The future of open source is actually the future of software freedom. Software freedom is the thing that we were set up to market and software freedom is the key to our success. In which ever part of the movement we're in, whether we're in the BSD movement, whether we're part of the open source OSI world, whether we're part of the FSF world, the thing that unites all of us is software freedom and we need to focus on that because we're going to find that there are increasingly people who want to divide us in whose interests it is to say that open source is just a word and that free is just about money. There's a lot of people who are on the rise at the European Parliament and in the standards bodies once again. The third decade of open source also has a bit of a beard problem. There's a lot of people who have been involved now for 20, 30, 35 years and you know, we're doing things like retiring and dying and things and we need to pass our experiences on. Participating in the community is not enough. You need to be mentoring. You need to be helping new developers and also younger experienced developers learn not to make the mistakes that you made. If you didn't make any mistakes you need to be helping them to know how not to make the mistakes you didn't make. And I think this is crucial for us to do as well. Pass on our experience to the people who are going to do in the next decade. So with that I'd like to wish you a very happy birthday. I wish I had the cake. Patrick didn't send us one. So as you raise a glass this evening please raise it to toast open source. To software freedom. Thank you very much for the talk. And there are a few minutes left for questions. And we have stickers. It's a question over there. Can you give us stickers? Thank you very much for this enlightening talk. And software open source was created somehow to refuse the freedom that Richard Stallman proposed to support. Would you say that 20 years afterwards you join his ideas? So I would say that there were some people who felt that way when I was formed. However I would say I put up a statement from Bruce. Bruce's idea from the beginning was that open source was a marketing program for software freedom. He fully embraced those ideals. I embraced those ideals. And I would say that the people who want to create a distinction are dinosaurs these days. Okay. Hi, Bobson. Well, Ethereum project here. I was just wondering would you say that the defensive patent license is an effective an effective tool in our armory? The defensive patent license? So is it going to be the GPL for patents or are we still lacking good tools there? I think that we still lack really good tools for patents because the best patent defenses are the best patent defenses are collaborative actions. So I'm a big fan of what OIN and license on transfer network have tried to do. Both of them have tried to get patent holders to create a disincentive for patent action. And I believe that that is the key really is to get people to collaborate together. So to the extent that DPL is a collaborative action I think it's a useful tool. But I don't think we've worked out what the real solution for patents is in this system. And I've stopped holding my breath about that in the light of the single European patent which is unfortunately a train wreck. All right, thank you. Thank you everybody.