 Welcome to another edition of Unfettered Freedom, your weekly canoe slash linux news video podcast. Packing so much freedom into each episode, it ought to be illegal. There's so much freedom packed into this podcast, I have no choice but to share it. I mean, what the hell am I going to do with all this freedom by myself? On this episode of Unfettered Freedom, NVIDIA is looking to buy arm. What does that mean for NVIDIA? What does that mean for arm? What does that mean to the competition? We're going to discuss this. Also, GNOME's Code of Conduct. I complained about three months ago that GNOME was a racist organization due to some strange language in their code of conduct. Recently, it looks like they have reworded some stuff, but has it really made any difference? To me, no, but we're going to discuss that. Why are some Free Software Foundation approved licenses permissive? There are many, many free licenses out there, but most of them are permissive rather than copy left. Why is that? Increasingly, Linux systems are being targeted. They're being targeted by hackers and malware and all kinds of evil stuff. We're going to discuss why that seems to be growing. Also, free versus proprietary and making your choices. When I talk about choosing free software versus proprietary software, some people are a little concerned about this. They're not exactly sure when they should use free software versus proprietary. We're going to discuss why some of the choices you have to make in life are difficult. And we're going to talk about how you go about making those choices and living with those choices. All this and more on this edition of Unfettered Freedom. Now, I am your host, Derek Taylor, also known as DT or DistroTube over on YouTube and on Library. Check me out on LBRY.TV. Also, this podcast as well as all of the video content on the DistroTube channel is community sponsored. Because of the community support that I receive, I have no corporate sponsors. There's no product shilling of any kind in these episodes. And if you'd like to support my work, I'd greatly appreciate it. Please consider subscribing to DistroTube over on Patreon. And our first story is Nvidia buying arm. Nvidia has agreed to buy arm from SoftBank for $40 billion. This is one of the biggest deals as far as a tech acquisition in forever. So this is a gigantic story, Nvidia buying arm. And many people in the free and open source software communities are not happy about this because free and open source software communities don't look highly upon Nvidia as a company, mainly because of the proprietary nature of much of their hardware and software. And many people don't want to see Nvidia have control of arm because arm chips are probably the most popular architecture of chips out there on the planet. Because think about it, everything that is a computer out there, anything smaller than a laptop basically is running an arm processor. So one of the things to consider here is all the mobile devices out there that have arm processors. You're talking about, let's talk about the Android devices. There are literally billions of Android devices on the planet. They all pretty much have arm processors. Now that's all owned by Nvidia, right? All those Android devices with those arm processors. I mean, Nvidia is about to make a ton of money with Android. Think about all the iPhones out there. And of course, increasingly now Apple has made the decision to start making computers, actual laptops and desktops using arm processors. They recently put that in the headlines. And Apple, especially, is not an Nvidia fan. Many years ago, Apple made the decision to get away from Nvidia, you know, not use Nvidia GPUs in their products because Apple and Nvidia kind of had a strained relationship. It wasn't a good relationship. So Apple just quit using Nvidia altogether. But now if Apple is going to start shipping laptops and computers with arm processors, well, all those arm processors are about to be manufactured and owned by Nvidia. So it will be interesting to see how that relationship is going forward. Also, Nvidia does not have a good working relationship with Linus Torvalds and the Linux kernel team about eight years ago. You remember Linus Torvalds basically said Nvidia was the worst company that they ever dealt with talking about the Linux kernel team. And then he looked at the camera and gave Nvidia the bird and said, F you. So not a good working relationship in video. They don't have a good working relationship with Linux. They don't have a good working relationship with Apple. So this story is just gigantic news because nobody really knows how all this is going to shake out. Now, Nvidia has agreed to buy arm from Softbank for $40 billion. But just because they have this agreement, it's going to take a while. A lot of people have to approve this before it gets done. There's a lot of regulation, regulatory stuff that has to happen. Certain governments have to sign off on it because it's such a gigantic deal, global deal. Right. And really you're looking at approximately 18 months before Nvidia officially closes this deal. Should everything go right? So it will be at least a year and a half before Nvidia officially owns arm. One of the things many people want to know about is will arm continue to be able to operate kind of independently of Nvidia or will Nvidia have their hands all over everything? And it appears at least initially what Nvidia is saying is that as part of Nvidia arm will continue to operate its open licensing model while maintaining the global customer neutrality that they've always kind of done. So they're basically going to let arm continue that kind of neutral business model and have their own level of independence. I know many people in the free and open source software communities really fear that now that Nvidia is involved with arm, they're going to start making everything proprietary and close sourcing everything. And that's certainly one thing to fear. Now the one possible upside to that is if Nvidia goes in there and really just starts ruining arm, like everything that we love about arm, Nvidia just goes in and changes everything. The upside to that is many of us that promote free software and open source software have really been hoping that one day risk V would just take off the risk five architecture. One day it's magically going to all of a sudden explode in popularity and that's the way that everybody's going to go. And that's not happened to this point. Well, the good thing is if Nvidia takes control of arm and completely ruins arm, I think a lot of people will start taking a serious look at risk V. I think this has the potential to really make risk V just explode in popularity and really take off. And because risk V is an actual open source alternative, I personally think that could be a huge benefit to the free and open source community from a political point of view. One interesting thing about this acquisition is arm moves from being owned by a Japanese company over to an American company. And because it's such a gigantic deal as far as the tech industry right now, the United States and China are kind of in a trade war, right? And this is kind of a blow to China in that trade war because now arm, you know, which used to be a Japanese owned company now is owned by an American company with American interest. Now, again, this deal, you know, you have to go through so much regulation and red tape before the deal is official. It's going to be at least 18 months before Nvidia takes control of arm. So it's interesting, you know, to speculate on what might happen, but we're probably looking a year and a half, two years out before we see any real changes. And our second story is about the GNOME code of conduct. Now about three or four months ago, I made a video about GNOME's code of conduct on my YouTube channel and over on library. And if you haven't watched that video, go check it out. But basically, most people probably have never read GNOME's code of conduct. Well, I shined a spotlight on it because the GNOME code of conduct has some very divisive and quite frankly racist language in it. It's very politically charged. It's very political in tone. It's very divisive. It's very activist in nature. It's like a leftist activist social justice warrior manifesto, basically. And I called them out on it and many people had a problem with GNOME's code of conduct once I shined that spotlight on it. And they asked GNOME, hey, you guys need to change that language in that code of conduct. And at first they really pushed back. They resisted because these guys are very political in nature. They're activists, they're social justice warriors and they wanted that language in there and they were not going to change it. They refused to change it and then all of a sudden, after a few days of some rather negative press, okay, we're going to revisit the code of conduct, we'll change it. Well, I never heard anything after that for a few weeks, a few months. Well, the other day, one of the viewers of my channel contacted me and said, hey, GNOME did change the language in their code of conduct. Have you taken a look at it? And I wasn't aware that any changes were made so I went and took a look at it today and he's right. They did change a few lines of their code of conduct. So why don't we compare today's code of conduct to the one that I shined that spotlight on three months ago. So if I take a look at the current GNOME code of conduct and then contrast it in the wayback machine. So I went to archive.org and looked up the GNOME code of conduct and I looked it up for the month of May. So this would have been around the time that I did that video or maybe a little before, maybe a month or so before I made that video. But it was probably the same code of conduct that I read when I made my video. And if I'm looking at it, those of you watching the video version of this podcast, the first thing they list is the scope of the code of conduct. So what all does the code of conduct apply? What kind of community spaces does the code of conduct have some sway over? And I did notice they increased the scope of the code of conduct in the new one. They added a few extra things. So before the code of conduct applied to anybody that takes part in GNOME's bug trackers, issuing filing bug reports or whatever on bugzilla, anybody that creates documentation or tutorials, anybody that hangs out on the mailing list, anybody that hangs out on the chat on their forums, etc. But in the new code of conduct, they also added a few things, mainly private events offsite that involve one or more attendees. Okay, well that's interesting, private events that involve one or more. I don't know why the code of conduct needs to involve somebody doing a private event. Also, now the code of conduct also includes private conversations taking place in official conference hotels. So if I go to a GNOME conference and I have a private conversation with somebody in my hotel room, I guess the code of conduct is governing that conversation as well. I'm not sure those are great changes, but just very minor changes to the code of conduct. But those were not the issues I had with the GNOME code of conduct. The problem I had was discrimination. They talk about it. You cannot discriminate against anybody for age, body size, caste, citizenship, disability, education, ethnicity, etc. Pretty much, you know, we all know, you know, you can't discriminate against anybody for any reason. I'm okay with that. But toward the end of this, it says that the GNOME community prioritizes marginalized people's safety over privileged people's comfort. The committee will not act on complaints regarding reversisms, including reverse racism, reverse sexism, and cisphobia. So they want to protect marginalized people rather than privileged people. That's strange language. That's saying, hey, we want to protect minorities rather than majorities. So we want to, you know, protect minority racial groups rather than white people. We want to protect, you know, minority religious affiliations rather than Christians in the U.S. We want to, you know, provide safety for people that are not heterosexual rather than people that are. That's what this language kind of says. I mean, just reading it common sense says, that's what they mean here. And then this was the language that I had a problem with. They say they will not act on reversisms, including charges of reverse racism, reverse sexism, and cisphobia. So I guess if you're white, you can't claim that somebody was racist against you. Or if you're a male, you can't claim that somebody was sexist towards you. And I have a serious problem with this language. And that was what I got to on my video a few months back. Now, did they change that? Because these lines here were specifically the lines that I had a problem with. And this is what everybody asked them to change. Are those lines still there? And those lines are still there. They have not been changed at all. The only thing that they did is I don't believe any of this stuff down here was here before. And what they did is they, I guess, tried to clarify that statement. Now they are saying that, quote, basic expectations for conduct are not covered by the reverseism clause and would be enforced irrespective of the demographics of those involved. For example, racial discrimination will not be tolerated irrespective of the race of those involved. Nor would unwanted sexual attention be tolerated whatever someone's gender or sexual orientation. So they made that crazy reverseism, reverse sexism, reverse racism remark. Now they are saying, even though we're leaving that statement as is, we're going to try to clarify it a little bit. Hey, you know what? Anybody can be discriminated against as far as racism and sexism. It doesn't really matter what race you are, what gender you are, what sexual orientation you are. Okay, well, I have no problem you guys adding that line. But why not remove this and put these lines down here in its place? You still left the problematic lines. And the reason they're doing this is they're virtue signaling here is basically what they're doing. They are just shining a big flashing billboard to all the leftist social justice warriors out there. Hey, we're one of you. You know, we're out there, you know, we want to fight this Black Lives Matter movement or whatever's going on these days. We want to stick it to the man, right? And by man, I mean men, right? We're all for women. Basically anybody that's a white heterosexual male and if you're Christian, you know, we're coming for you. You know, that seems to be the case these days, you know, right? We are the targets. And Genome is in on that too. You know, they're coming after those folks. And that's what that language says. But then they want to backtrack in this paragraph down here and say, well, you know, even though we put that language in there, you know what? If somebody is white and they say somebody discriminated against them because of race, we will listen to it. But you can't have it both ways. You can't in one sentence say we're not going to respond to charges of reverse racism. And then later say, but you know what? We'll take a look at it if somebody makes that claim. Well, which is it? So this solves nothing to me. Genome is still a racist organization. This code of conduct is still divisive and racist in tone until they change this language. I can't in good faith promote Genome anymore on my channel. I can't tell you guys to go use their products because it doesn't seem like they're interested in software development at all these days. They are only interested in promoting whatever political agendas they have. And because of that, again, I'm not going to cover Genome on my YouTube channel anymore. I will never recommend it as a desktop environment that you guys should use. And I hope you guys understand that. I hope you guys respect that decision by me. And our third topic is going to be the topic of free licensing and by free. I mean, free as in freedom free software foundation approved licensing because the FSL and Richard Stallman have made it very clear that permissive licenses are not fully free as in the spirit of the free software movement. Because they don't have any copy left protections in them the way that the GPL does. The GPL of course is the news public license. And the GPL has copied left protection in it, meaning that when you take a piece of GPL software and you modify it and redistribute it, it has to also be licensed under the GPL. You can't change the license. You can't restrict the next person from using that software. And anyway, the freedoms that you had when you got the software have to be the same freedoms that you pass it on as. And that is different than many other quote free licenses, the MIT license, the BSD license, the Apache license. They allow people to modify works under those licenses and then license them under a different license, including closed source proprietary licenses. And yes, some people will say, well, that that's part of being free, allowing people to take free software and then modifying it and redistributing it as proprietary software. That's part of being free. You're giving people the freedom to make this free software now proprietary. Yeah, you could make that argument, but you don't want to give people so much freedom that they have the freedom to take other people's freedom away. So the copy left protections of the GPL are there to protect people. And I personally promote the GPL. I tell you guys, hey, when you're writing your software, you can license it under the GPL. Great. Now the GPL is not anywhere near the most popular free license out there. Most people probably choose things like the MIT license and the Apache license and the various BSD licenses rather than the GPL. As a matter of fact, I know they do. All three of those licenses are more popular than the GPL. Why? It's because many companies, especially that are involved with open source software, they fear the GPL because they fear that the GPL has this virus like nature to it. It's viral in nature and that it just is going to spread and infect everything they do because the GPL means, hey, if I take this work that's already GPL. I modified. I have to redistribute it as GPL and some companies especially want to keep it in their back pocket that, hey, if I want to, I can always close source this thing. And you can do that if you use the MIT license or the BSD license or the Apache license. You can't really do that with the GPL. Now, all that being said, why are the MIT license and the BSD license and the Apache license and all these permissive licenses approved by the FSF? And Richard Stallman. Richard Stallman has no problem with these licenses as far as they're considered free licenses. Well, the thing is being free as in freedom is simply do you meet the four essential freedoms that define free software and all of the licenses I've mentioned here, all of them meet the four essential freedoms. So they all are considered free software because copy left protection is really not part of the free software definition. So you can be a free license and also be a permissive license as well. So I know some people are confused about that because obviously the GNU project and FSF and Stallman, you know, they promote heavily the GPL. But there's still a big difference between free permissive licenses like the MIT license and proprietary licenses for a license to be a free license. All it has to do is meet the four essential freedoms. That's it. Copy left is not part of meeting the four essential freedoms. So the MIT license, the BSD license, all these permissive licenses are free licenses because they meet the four freedoms, which means they don't infringe your rights to one, use the software to modify the software. Three, distribute the software and four, distribute your modified works of that software. All of them are perfectly in line with the four essential freedoms for free software. Now, yes, you can fork something under MIT license, slap a proprietary closed source license on it, you know, close source it. That's perfectly okay because you have, they had the right. They had the four freedoms when they did that. Now once they slap that proprietary closed source license on it, obviously it's no longer free software at that point. But then again, they're not licensing it under a free license either. They're going to put a proprietary license on that thing. Otherwise they would have major legal problems. So I hope I cleared some of that up because that is one of the questions I often get, especially when I start talking about the GPO because I kind of promote the GPO a lot on my channel. I talk about it being the best license, maybe the most ethical, most moral license out there for free software. But many people say, well, MIT and BSD and Apache, all these other licenses are so bad. Why does the free software foundation approve those licenses? Because the free software foundation is simply listing licenses that meet the four essential freedoms. Again, copy lift is something extra, but at the same time copy lift isn't essential to something being free software. Maybe it's something that Stallman and the GNU guys should have considered making part of the free software definition. But for whatever reason, they didn't include that as part of the free software definition. So you have this weird situation where you can be free as far as free software, but have absolutely no copy lift protection at all. And the fourth topic I want to talk about is Linux systems are increasingly being targeted by hackers and malware and spyware and all these various attacks. And why is that the case? Why is Linux increasingly seeing this stuff? It seems like every day, if I go searching for Linux news, every single day there's a new exploit out there, sometimes a major exploit. And this really wasn't the case when I first got into desktop Linux about 12 years ago or so. You know, these kinds of stories were pretty rare. I mean, you would get a big story, you know, once or twice a year, but now every time I look for this stuff, I can find a new major gaping hole in the Linux kernel and our GNU slash Linux operating systems. So we have some security researchers from Kaspersky now warning people that Linux systems are becoming increasingly targeted, specifically targeted by the hackers with this ever widening selection of malware tools that are out there. Traditionally, of course, we all know Windows was the system that was the target for most hackers. 10, 15 years ago, especially, that's all they wanted to hack were Windows systems that you really didn't have these kind of malware attacks on Mac or on Linux. But increasingly, we have these advanced persistent threats, these APTs showing up in the Linux world. Some notable examples of Linux exploits here recently include things like Boothole, Two Cell Junk, Sophosy Equation, which these are all great names. I love the names of these exploits. I've made fun of that boothole name. Many times I've made some off-color remarks about that. I really love the Two Cell Junk name, too, because I would love to be able to tell somebody, hey, my Linux system was recently exploited. Oh, really? How did they get in? Well, they got in because they hit me with that Two Cell Junk. Who comes up with the names? But in all seriousness, taking your security seriously is important on your Linux systems, especially. Now, obviously, many people are targeting Linux because Linux is so prevalent in the server market. And those of you that are system administrators and you run mission-critical servers, I'm sure you guys know how to properly secure those machines. Those of us that are simply desktop Linux users such as myself, you know, I don't actually work in any tech-related field. I don't work with computers at all. I'm just a regular guy. I'm just a regular Linux desktop user. How can I secure my system? Well, the Kaspersky guys do give some pretty good advice here on what you can do. So some of the things you can do include maintaining a list of trusted software sources and avoid using unencrypted update channels. So trusted software sources. Typically, you can trust the stuff in your Linux distributions repositories, their core repositories. Now, once you go outside of that, can you really trust those software sources? So I'm talking about those of you that use Ubuntu or Ubuntu-based systems. Can you trust a third-party PPA? Maybe, maybe not. But on mission-critical systems, I would never add a PPA. Can you trust the AUR packages in the AUR if you use a arch-based system? If I'm running a server and, you know, I want absolute security, I'm not just installing anything from the AUR, right? You really can't trust that stuff because that's a community repository. You probably can't trust just any snapback or flatback or app image. Also recommended here is never run a binary or a script from an untrusted source. So never just go to GitHub or GitLab and grab somebody's script and execute it. You read that script and understand it and know what it's doing. Another thing is oftentimes people will ask you to install programs using the curl command. And most of the time, this is perfectly safe. But unless you know exactly where this curl command is going, what website it's going to and what it's going to pull down and what it's going to execute on your system, you probably shouldn't do that because, again, it's a security nightmare when you do stuff like this. Instead of taking your computer's life in your own hands any time you run a curl command that's going to execute a script on your system. Obviously, one of the things that stands out to me, especially as a desktop Linux user, make sure you update your system. Make sure your update procedure is effective. Make sure you set up automatic security updates if you haven't. This is something many Linux desktop users, I've noticed, don't really do. Especially on static release distributions, things like Ubuntu and Fedora and Mint and elementary, things like that. Many times people just don't even bother updating the system because they know they're going to reinstall in six months, nine months, a year, whatever the next release is. So they just don't bother with the updates. Well, those updates, even though they may not update the user land software, your browser and Office Suite and things like that, those updates are important because they include especially very serious security updates such as updates to your kernel. So make sure you have an effective update schedule that you can keep. If you can't keep it, just turn on automatic updates if your Linux distribution supports automatic updating. Some other things you could do, turn on a firewall. Most Linux distributions these days ship with a firewall. Your desktop Linux distributions, many of them already have a firewall on there. It may not be enabled and active by default, but it's there. Just turn it on. Some other things you could do include SSH. Those of you that SSH a lot, make sure you're using SSH keys rather than just a password. Make sure also that you have two-factor authentication for all of your websites that you visit, all your social networks and things like that because simply using a password, we've talked about this, it is very easy to hack a password. If somebody really wants to break your password, they're going to break it. Make sure you have two-factor enabled for all services that offer it. Some more advanced stuff you could do. This isn't for everybody, but you could audit the system. You could check your logs for indications of attacks. You can monitor the network. For those of you that have the skills, you could even run penetration testing on your Linux boxes yourself. But that's really more advanced stuff. But most of what I mentioned is rather simple. Just turning on the firewall, for example, is very easy to do. Making sure two factors enabled and just don't execute any script you find on the internet. That's probably the biggest one. And our fifth and final topic is free software versus proprietary software and how you go about making your choice. Because everybody has to sacrifice sometimes, right? Let's assume that you understand what the free software movement is and that you agree with it, because really that's the people we're talking about here. The people that have no idea about free software or they could care less. You know, this doesn't apply to them, but those of us that have been exposed to what free software means, and we agree with the movement. We agree that free software is morally superior than proprietary software. But at the same time, all of us at some point have to use proprietary software. We just do. How do you decide when it's okay to use that proprietary software? And how do you go about living with your decisions? Because many people, when they use this proprietary software, if they subscribe to the free software movement, you know, it bothers them. And sometimes it bothers them in a big way, right? Even to the point where some people will complain that they lose sleep over this and that sort of thing. I've never been like that, you know, not much bothers me. But some people do internalize this stuff in a serious way. And, you know, they think, hey, they agree, proprietary software is immoral. But because they had to use this one piece of proprietary software at work, it means they're immoral for using that. And I don't agree with that. And most people in the free software movement don't agree with them. Proprietary software is immoral. We can all agree on that. But really it's immoral because of the proprietor of that software who stuck that proprietary license on it. He's the immoral person, the person that slapped that license on it. The people that use the proprietary software, they're not immoral. Nobody's calling you out for using proprietary software. And you really shouldn't be too hard on yourself if you have to use proprietary software. At the end of the day, everybody falls somewhere on the free software spectrum of maybe, you know, way on this end, you're more pragmatic, you know, you don't mind using proprietary software when it is convenient. On the other end of the spectrum will be more of the zealots. I probably am way on that end. But even I sometimes have to use proprietary software. You can't escape it. All you can do is wherever your comfort level is on that spectrum, accept it and live with that. Again, don't lose sleep over it. It's not you, the person using that proprietary software that's the problem. It's the developer of that proprietary software who for whatever reason refuses to share the source code and license it under an appropriate free license. That's the person that the free software movement has a problem with. Some of the reasons you often have to use proprietary software, it's unavoidable, really, because sometimes to avoid you failing a class at school, you have to use proprietary software. Sometimes to prevent you from getting fired from your job, right? You have to use proprietary software. And sometimes just to prevent you from being isolated socially. You have to engage on proprietary platforms. You often hear people say they have to use things like Facebook because everybody's on Facebook, all my friends are on Facebook, the entire family's on Facebook, I have to be on it. I understand that. I'm not like that because I don't subscribe to that argument, but I don't like social media anyway. I'm not addicted to it like some people are. But for some people, that's where they fall on that spectrum. And that's okay. That's where you are. That's where you are. You, the Facebook user, are not the problem. It's Facebook, the company. That's the problem. At the end of the day, all you can do is determine your principles. You know, figure out exactly where you are on that spectrum, what you're willing to sacrifice, what you hold dear, what you won't surrender, figure out what you will surrender, what you will sacrifice and accept that decision that you've made. And live with that decision. That's really all you can do. Now, just very briefly, I do want to discuss one other very quick topic. Unfettered Freedom has been released on a weekly basis up until now. This is Episode 7. And for the last seven weeks, I've released Unfettered Freedom every week. Well, I'm going to start releasing Unfettered Freedom every two weeks. I think switching to a bi-weekly schedule makes a lot more sense. And the reason this is the case is because Unfettered Freedom is a bit of a departure from my usual content and my usual format because typically I do video content, you know, and I do it on video platforms such as YouTube and Library. And I have to consider the impact that a podcast-style show has on my video channels, on those video platforms because they're not going to get as many views, watch times, not going to be as great. And, you know, YouTube especially punishes people when they do a departure from their usual kind of content, not as many people watch it. And it really trashes you in their algorithms. They quit recommending your videos as much. And, you know, doing that on an occasional basis, once or twice a month, it's not a big deal. But for me, doing Unfettered Freedom on a weekly basis, you know, it's a substantial percentage of my content right now. Unfettered Freedom because I'm doing it every week. I only release, you know, four or five videos a week. And one of them is this half hour to 45 minute podcast. And that's a problem. So I need to not be as frequent in publishing these because I do want to publish them on YouTube and Library, but I do know it's going to cause me some issues doing so. So let's back it up a little bit, right? We're going to start doing this every other week. And it's not just because of the analytics and the algorithms. I also think going to a bi-weekly schedule just makes sense for sake of the quality of the show because having two weeks worth of material to potentially draw from for a show, at the end of the day, it's going to make for a better podcast. So starting with episode eight, we're going to switch to a bi-weekly show. So we're going to get episode eight Unfettered Freedom two weeks from today. Now, before I go, I want to thank a few special people. I do need to thank the producers of this show. I need to thank Michael, Gabe, Corbinion, Mitchell, Devin, Fran, Arch5530, Akami Channel, Chuck, Claudio, Donnie, Dylan, George, Kelev Devils, Lewis, Paul, Scott, and Willie. These guys, they are my highest-tier patrons over on Patreon. Without these guys, episode seven of Unfettered Freedom would not have been possible. I also need to thank each and every one of these ladies and gentlemen, those of you watching the video podcast, they're seeing a very long list of names on the screen right now. These are all my supporters over on Patreon because, again, this podcast and all of my content on my YouTube channel and my library channel, all of this is supported by you guys, the community. There are no corporate sponsors at DistroTube and if you'd like to support me, look for DistroTube over on Patreon. All right, guys. Peace.