[00:00.000 --> 00:12.000] Now, I'd like to welcome our next speaker, Bradley Kuhn. [00:12.000 --> 00:20.880] I was going to bring up my COVID test to show you I tested negative this morning, so I'm [00:20.880 --> 00:25.000] going to take my mask off for speaking, but now I don't want to get close, you know, until [00:25.000 --> 00:29.800] I mask off to go get the test to show you, but I'll show it at the end. [00:29.800 --> 00:33.400] So I apologize for any typos on the slides. [00:33.400 --> 00:37.400] I practice just-in-time talk preparation, which is why I was in the back when people [00:37.400 --> 00:38.600] kept coming to ask me questions. [00:38.600 --> 00:43.040] I was weirdly sending them away saying I was still working the last three slides five minutes [00:43.040 --> 00:44.040] ago. [00:44.040 --> 00:47.120] So I apologize for typos, which I always have them. [00:47.120 --> 00:55.520] So I decided to announce at this FOSDOM that I'm officially old, and I think it's an [00:55.520 --> 00:56.520] appropriate order. [00:56.520 --> 00:59.920] I'll tell you, his mouth has so many buttons I can't figure it out. [00:59.920 --> 01:01.920] I'm going to have to use the space bar. [01:01.920 --> 01:06.120] It's like, this is like a super power mouse I've never seen such a thing. [01:06.120 --> 01:10.120] It's very impressive, but I think it requires a tutorial I haven't had. [01:10.120 --> 01:16.640] So this is my 12th FOSDOM, and the reason it's only my 12th FOSDOM is because once upon [01:16.640 --> 01:21.800] a time, I was under a travel policy where you could only speak, you could only be funded [01:21.800 --> 01:27.080] to travel if you were speaking, and I could never get a talk accepted in the main track. [01:27.080 --> 01:31.520] And I'm very embarrassed to say this, but in the early 2000s, I didn't realize dev rooms [01:31.520 --> 01:32.520] had talks. [01:32.520 --> 01:34.960] I thought they were like hack sessions. [01:34.960 --> 01:40.200] So I never tried to submit a talk to a dev room until Tom proposed that we run our own [01:40.200 --> 01:42.120] dev room, which is, of course, this one. [01:42.120 --> 01:45.120] That's why that was my first FOSDOM instead of way back when. [01:46.120 --> 01:51.120] But I was counting this morning, and I've been to, I stopped counting at 100 when I [01:51.120 --> 01:57.200] found it was definitely 100 different events or conferences related to free and open-source [01:57.200 --> 01:59.280] software that I've been to. [01:59.280 --> 02:04.200] And I've also given a lot of talks at places like universities that weren't conferences, [02:04.200 --> 02:09.360] and I stopped counting this morning when I got to at least 150 public talks that I've [02:09.360 --> 02:12.000] given about FOSDOM. [02:12.000 --> 02:21.600] And I've considered myself a FOSD activist probably since the mid-1990s, and I started [02:21.600 --> 02:25.360] being paid for it around 1997 or so. [02:25.360 --> 02:38.400] So I have about 25 years of being a FOSD activist, and this year, I'm turning 3-2 in hex. [02:38.400 --> 02:46.000] And so depending on which counting system you use, I'm both over 30 and over 50 in the [02:46.000 --> 02:52.000] two different systems, so I'm part of the old generation now. [02:52.000 --> 02:56.840] And I want to be really clear, we were talking about this this morning at breakfast, it's [02:56.840 --> 03:02.400] extremely important, I think, for the older generation to begin to see the power. [03:02.400 --> 03:07.480] I am not terribly comfortable with gerotocracy. [03:07.480 --> 03:12.040] I don't mean to be agist about it, but I will promise you that I'm going to begin a [03:12.040 --> 03:17.360] process of, for the extent to which I have any privilege and power in FOSDOM, I'm going [03:17.360 --> 03:23.560] to work over the next 20 years to completely see that power by the end of those 20 years. [03:23.560 --> 03:28.960] But it leaves me, when I start thinking like this, trying to figure out all the things [03:28.960 --> 03:39.000] and all the decisions and various other choices we made that were wrong over the last 25 years [03:39.000 --> 03:40.000] or so. [03:40.000 --> 03:44.320] And it's very harrowing and frustrating to think about, but I figured I should put it [03:44.320 --> 03:46.320] into a talk. [03:46.320 --> 03:51.880] I've always like actually first heard that this quote is often misattributed to various [03:51.880 --> 03:57.040] other 60s activists, and I first heard it in all places, the movie The Planet of the [03:57.040 --> 04:03.320] Apes, where the young Ape says to the Charlton Heston character that he doesn't trust all [04:03.320 --> 04:08.720] the old leaders of the Ape community, and he says, yeah, I don't trust anyone over 30, [04:08.720 --> 04:13.920] which was of course this watchword of 1960s activism. [04:13.920 --> 04:19.160] And I think, so I went looking for the real source of the quote, which this is. [04:19.160 --> 04:24.160] And what he's trying to say basically is that people who are empowered, no matter what kind [04:24.240 --> 04:30.840] of politics they had, there was a lot of manipulation going on from this older generation to kind [04:30.840 --> 04:37.280] of push both leftist activists and conservative people in the directions just to follow in [04:37.280 --> 04:42.800] the footsteps of the older generation and the older way of thinking. [04:42.800 --> 04:47.480] This is of course how the movement, at least in the United States in the 1960s gets dubbed [04:47.480 --> 04:50.680] the new left, that they're trying to create this new thing. [04:50.680 --> 04:56.320] And of course now they're the old left, because Jack Weinberg's in his 80s and all these other [04:56.320 --> 05:02.320] activists from that era are older, and now here I am becoming that old generation. [05:02.320 --> 05:09.320] So, but I still think about what is so funny about peace, love, and understanding, or even [05:11.960 --> 05:18.440] communism, like why was I, I think a lot about, we were terrified in the early free [05:18.480 --> 05:23.880] software movement of being called communists. Everybody was saying that GPL was a communist [05:23.880 --> 05:30.000] license, and we worked really hard to say that it wasn't, and that it was really a capitalist [05:30.000 --> 05:35.480] license, and it was all about capitalism and great, and all this sort of stuff, but frankly [05:35.480 --> 05:41.840] I never really dabbled in communism. I dabbled in anarchy as a teenager. I was a punk rock [05:41.880 --> 05:48.880] kid, and I remember getting the exploited first album, I got it in the, it was recorded [05:49.760 --> 05:54.560] in 1981, I got it in the late 80s, and the album was titled Punks Not Dead, and I kind [05:54.560 --> 05:59.560] of think that once you're at the point, you have to say, our movement's not dead, maybe [05:59.560 --> 06:03.920] in trouble. You have to write a song that says, no, we're totally not dead yet, we're [06:03.920 --> 06:10.920] totally still a movement. Now I found this image, and the best part about this image [06:12.040 --> 06:19.040] is that, so I'm sure this is a copyright infringement, because I found it on literally Adobe.com's [06:19.840 --> 06:26.840] clip art website, and that was just such a symbol of co-option that to get an anarchist [06:27.360 --> 06:34.360] logo that says, Punks Not Dead, the first one I found was in Adobe's clip art, so I kind [06:34.720 --> 06:41.720] of proudly infringing Adobe's copyright here, because that's what an anarchist would do, [06:41.960 --> 06:48.960] right? So being a kid in the 1980s in the United States, this was when I became anti-RAAA [06:52.240 --> 06:59.240] and anti-MPAA, like this, we were already about that, because there was all this effort [07:00.320 --> 07:07.320] to stop people from sharing music, and the punk movement was really up in all of them [07:08.240 --> 07:15.240] about this, this idea that music and culture should be for everyone, and not pushed down [07:16.040 --> 07:22.040] on us by corporate America. I was a huge fan of the Dead Kennedys, and I actually, I don't [07:22.040 --> 07:26.680] have it anymore, by the way, because my mother read Tipper Gore's book and came into my room [07:26.680 --> 07:30.480] when I was at school, and took all my punk records and threw them away, and replaced them [07:30.480 --> 07:36.520] with Phil Collins, and I didn't realize until like 30 years later, because I never actually [07:36.560 --> 07:41.240] read Tipper's book myself, her book actually literally suggested that's what you should [07:41.240 --> 07:46.520] do, go into your kids' room, take their Dead Kennedys records, and replace them with Phil [07:46.520 --> 07:53.520] Collins. I was already a professional in 2002 or so, and my mother sent me a videotape [07:54.720 --> 07:59.800] concert of Phil Collins, because it moved in her mind that I actually liked Phil Collins, [07:59.920 --> 08:06.520] Tipper Gore said that I would, but anyway, this was side two of an album that Dead Kennedys [08:06.520 --> 08:13.520] put out, spoofing that home taping thing, and I may be one of the only people who literally, [08:13.920 --> 08:17.720] because I really couldn't afford cassette tapes, I literally took their advice, and [08:17.720 --> 08:22.920] I think I put like a Bad Brains album or something on the other side of this cassette. [08:22.920 --> 08:29.360] And the thing is, somewhere also around 2002 or so, Joe Biafra, who was the lead singer [08:29.400 --> 08:35.400] of the Dead Kennedys, came and was doing speaking tours, he kind of became a spoken word artist [08:35.400 --> 08:40.600] after a while, and he came to Boston where I was living at the time, was living in Cambridge, [08:40.600 --> 08:45.600] Massachusetts, in the United States, and I went to see him, and I'd already started working [08:45.600 --> 08:52.120] doing, I was literally in the middle of huge anti-DOM work that I was doing, where the [08:52.120 --> 08:59.120] place I used to work, and so I walk up to him, I go to the meet and greet, and he's still [08:59.440 --> 09:03.640] up on crack, because he didn't start the show until it was supposed to start at 9 p.m. [09:03.640 --> 09:07.640] and he started at 11 p.m., so it's like now two in the morning when I'm standing in line [09:07.640 --> 09:11.360] for the meet and greet, and I just wanted to go to bed, I was already getting old at [09:11.360 --> 09:15.000] that point, but 2 a.m. was pretty late to stand there for a meet and greet, and I get [09:15.000 --> 09:19.080] up to Joe Biafra, you know, you always want to, when you meet somebody famous, you always [09:19.080 --> 09:23.800] want to say something about yourself that will kind of impress them, and I said, you [09:23.800 --> 09:30.800] know, I'm doing huge work right now against the MPAA and their aggressive use of copyright, [09:31.960 --> 09:35.440] and Jello looks at me, and if you've ever heard a Dick Henry song, you know the Jello [09:35.440 --> 09:39.320] whiny voice, just imagine that because I can't really imitate it, but he looks at me and [09:39.320 --> 09:44.720] says, you don't understand, I need copyright, if I don't have copyright, the ability to [09:44.720 --> 09:51.720] stop people from copying my work, I would have to tour all the time, and this image [09:51.880 --> 09:57.480] of this thing flashing in my head, and you know, I haven't listened to a thing Jello [09:57.480 --> 10:01.480] has said since then, because it was sort of like, well, you're the guy that gave me [10:01.480 --> 10:08.480] this tape in 1987, and here in 2002, you're telling me you love copyright. Yeah, never [10:08.480 --> 10:15.480] meet your heroes. So this leads me to think, was I ever really an activist? You know, would [10:16.160 --> 10:21.040] somebody meeting me have the same reaction I had to meet Jello? I always felt I was [10:21.040 --> 10:28.040] doing activism all these years, but I'm not really sure, maybe we weren't doing it correctly. [10:28.040 --> 10:35.040] I don't even know if software rights and freedom were ever really a radical cause for social [10:35.520 --> 10:42.520] change, and kind of the opposite of an anarchist these days, I'm an unwavering rule follower, [10:43.920 --> 10:50.920] and I encourage people to follow all the rules, particularly if copyright licenses, so I [10:51.400 --> 10:58.400] don't know if we were as disruptive and activist as I hoped we were going to be, I mean I hope [10:59.080 --> 11:06.080] so, but I'm not sure. I think about myself as a teenager, the one who had that cassette [11:06.920 --> 11:12.160] in 1986, I'm going to turn, cause I'm going to talk a lot anyway, I'm hitting the gain [11:12.160 --> 11:19.160] too high there, so I turned myself completely off, am I still good? What's that? Okay, how's [11:19.240 --> 11:23.880] that? Am I not echoing anymore? Okay, I think that's good. Okay, so I think about myself [11:23.880 --> 11:29.640] as a teenager, and what I would say to myself, and I saw myself right now, and this is what [11:29.640 --> 11:33.400] I would say. That's what I say to everybody in the room. I'd walk in here, be like, you're [11:33.400 --> 11:38.520] sell out, you're conformist, you look at you and you're wearing a button down shirt, are [11:38.520 --> 11:43.200] you kidding me? I look at my haircut, I think of the fact that I shaved for the first time [11:43.240 --> 11:50.240] in 30 years and be like, now you're really selling out, but that's not, teenagers are [11:50.800 --> 11:56.200] the way they are, right? They don't have a lot of nuanced ability to understand the world, [11:56.200 --> 12:01.120] so I don't think I can go back to my teenage self and figure out everything I did wrong [12:01.120 --> 12:06.400] because I was a lot stupider as a teenager and I wouldn't trust that person to make any [12:06.400 --> 12:13.400] conclusions. But what I can think about is that we tried to build a coalition of people [12:16.760 --> 12:23.440] that would support free software, and I think we did a very poor job at the coalition we [12:23.440 --> 12:29.800] assembled for a number of different reasons. I think I don't blame us too much for that [12:29.800 --> 12:35.400] mistake because I don't think it's, I think it's hard to decide when you're selling out [12:35.400 --> 12:41.280] and when you're building a coalition with some for profit company and they exist in [12:41.280 --> 12:48.280] the world and they have a lot of power, so it's pretty hard to fight them without some [12:48.360 --> 12:54.360] kind of way of interacting with them. So I don't know everywhere we cross those lines, [12:54.360 --> 13:00.200] but when I think of the beginning of free software, I think one of the seeds of the [13:00.200 --> 13:07.200] problems we had was the rather single-minded obsession with libertarian politics and Ayn Rand [13:12.680 --> 13:19.680] style thinking in the early free software movement. There was this idea that we were [13:21.160 --> 13:27.040] going to let all the smartest people rise to the top, that free software was better [13:27.040 --> 13:31.960] because the smartest people worked on it and were able to work with the smartest people. [13:31.960 --> 13:36.400] I often think there was a free software developer who's not a free software developer anymore [13:36.400 --> 13:41.760] named Ben Collins-Sussman, and when he went to work for Google, he wrote this blog post [13:41.760 --> 13:47.840] years ago and said, I don't need free software anymore, he said, because I now get to work [13:47.840 --> 13:52.560] with the best engineers in the world because they're all at Google. So my goal in being [13:52.560 --> 13:57.920] in free software from his perspective was to be able to cross-collaborate many different [13:57.920 --> 14:03.760] organizations with the best minds, but from his perspective, once he got into the company [14:03.760 --> 14:09.240] that had the best minds, he didn't need free software anymore. And that kind of philosophy, [14:09.240 --> 14:16.240] I think, was really central to early FOS and also led us to really count out a capitalism. [14:16.240 --> 14:22.360] There were two things going on. One, we were being called communists constantly. There's [14:22.360 --> 14:29.520] an article of talking about GPL enforcement in Forbes in 2002 that sort of paints me as [14:29.520 --> 14:36.960] this communist. And then there was this idea that capitalism was going to be better with [14:36.960 --> 14:41.800] free software. And we wanted to convince people. I remember giving talks, going on about you [14:41.800 --> 14:48.400] can get rich doing free software and all that sort of stuff. And my team itself would definitely [14:48.440 --> 14:55.440] call me a sellout for saying that, for sure. And we've always loved this word freedom and [14:56.320 --> 15:01.440] saying fighting for people's freedom, their rights in free software, their ability to [15:01.440 --> 15:07.940] do things. But I think we were a little too focused on the freedom of the privileged few [15:07.940 --> 15:14.940] to really capitalize on that FOS and do something with it. And I think we forgot about the hobbyists [15:15.940 --> 15:22.940] that really, I think, were the center of why free software existed in the first place. [15:22.940 --> 15:28.940] So this is a slide from exactly 10 years ago on this day. I just copied the slide forward [15:28.940 --> 15:35.940] from my talk 10 years ago. And I've thought about this quote so often over the last 10 [15:35.940 --> 15:41.940] years. I was completely obsessed with it when it happened. And this really put into perspective [15:41.940 --> 15:48.940] for me the difference between copy left and non-copy left. I don't think copy left is [15:49.260 --> 15:55.380] the goal of free software. But the interesting thing about those who wanted to use copy left [15:55.380 --> 16:02.380] as a tool and those who despised it is very stark and important. Because the interest [16:04.180 --> 16:11.180] of capitalist endeavors was to have a full range of motion and to have a full range of [16:12.460 --> 16:17.500] any type of software they could do. So this idea of, well, we want to be able to choose [16:17.500 --> 16:24.180] when we open source and choose when we don't. That's what matters most to us because it [16:24.180 --> 16:31.180] gives us maximum flexibility and therefore maximizes profit. And I think we were afraid, [16:31.500 --> 16:38.500] those of us who are more hardcore free software activists, to not simply say that non-copy [16:38.500 --> 16:45.500] lefted software is fundamentally flawed. That giving software to companies and saying [16:45.780 --> 16:49.460] we're not going to make any requirements on you that you act well in this community. [16:49.460 --> 16:56.460] You have no rules. You have, in essence, anarchy. And it's the precise reason I'm not an anarchist [16:56.660 --> 17:03.740] anymore because I've observed that anarchy tends to work great for small collaborative [17:03.740 --> 17:08.980] groups of 20 to 30 people who are all equals. But as soon as you bring power dynamics into [17:08.980 --> 17:15.980] anarchy and try to scale it, anarchy becomes capitalism, unbridled capitalism, the ability [17:17.020 --> 17:21.700] for the wealthy to have more power. It's pretty akin to the same libertarian politics [17:21.700 --> 17:27.500] that I feel over influenced the early free software world. I used to say all the time [17:27.500 --> 17:34.500] in talks that the great thing about free software is that commercial and non-commercial actors [17:34.860 --> 17:41.860] could be equal. That somehow the way free software communities operated would make sure that a [17:43.980 --> 17:50.980] large commercial entity would have to answer to the individual developer. Now that does [17:51.020 --> 17:57.220] happen and it even still happens today, but I don't actually think it's the norm. I think [17:57.260 --> 18:04.260] given the amount of resources, particularly now, that are put forward by commercial entities [18:06.180 --> 18:13.180] into open source, means that there is always a power imbalance between the individual developer, [18:13.460 --> 18:20.460] the individual contributor, and the corporate commercial contributor. And in fact, this [18:21.460 --> 18:28.460] is a great place where copy left has somewhat failed us, because copy left by itself is [18:28.660 --> 18:35.660] useful for this problem, but it is still insufficient in its ability to put non-commercial and commercial [18:36.620 --> 18:40.980] actors truly on equal footing, in part because enforcement is so hard to find. That's what [18:40.980 --> 18:46.420] I spent a lot of my time trying to do in my day job these days, is figure out how to actually [18:46.420 --> 18:51.860] make sure the copy left is complied with, but even if we had universal copy left compliance, [18:51.860 --> 18:58.860] I don't think it would automatically solve this power imbalance between commercial and [18:58.940 --> 19:05.940] non-commercial actors. One of the fondest things I've always liked to say is that I [19:07.060 --> 19:14.060] showed up in free software for the free isn't price, because I was a student and I looked [19:14.980 --> 19:21.980] at Solaris x86 and it was a $450 in 1994 dollars, or $93, for a student license, which was completely [19:28.220 --> 19:35.100] unaffordable for me in 1993, and I said, well, I'm going to install Linux because it's [19:35.100 --> 19:41.140] free isn't price. I wasn't really that worried yet about the license of the software, I just [19:41.180 --> 19:48.180] wanted a Unix system that was not $450 US dollars, but I stayed, of course, because I got all [19:49.420 --> 19:53.180] the source code to Linux and everything else that was on my Slackware distribution that [19:53.180 --> 19:57.820] I ran in those days, so I always say this, that I came for the free isn't price and stayed [19:57.820 --> 20:04.820] for the free isn't freedom, but I think we underestimated how important free isn't price [20:05.580 --> 20:12.580] was. I think there was this essential egalitarian component of people being able to download [20:13.740 --> 20:18.180] software as soon as they got an internet connection and not have to pay for it that was important. [20:18.180 --> 20:22.820] I'm not saying we should change the licenses to not allow commercial activity or anything [20:22.820 --> 20:27.900] like that, I think we should, of course, continue to write our licenses that way, but I think [20:27.980 --> 20:34.980] we need to consider the equity of people around the world who may not be able to afford access [20:35.740 --> 20:39.940] to software. One of the things I do a lot in GPL enforcement is constantly raise the [20:39.940 --> 20:46.940] issue that if your source code release for your GPL work is a multi gigabyte download, [20:48.460 --> 20:53.020] you have to give away to get it to people who might have to pay by the hour for internet [20:53.100 --> 21:00.100] access at 100 or 10 or 5 or 10 megabits, right, because there are people around the world [21:00.940 --> 21:04.940] who go to internet cafes just to get internet access and how would have to pay to download [21:04.940 --> 21:10.740] that source release, and if you're holding it back from them, then you're creating an [21:10.740 --> 21:17.740] equity that the copy left licenses were meant to solve. I'm obsessed with time travel. I [21:18.420 --> 21:24.780] felt a lot of bad things happen in my life, and the only way I can get to sleep any night [21:24.780 --> 21:29.820] is I start imagining that I can go back in time and solve everything that's gone wrong. [21:29.820 --> 21:36.420] So I've thought a tremendous amount if I could write Marty's letter to solve the worst thing [21:36.420 --> 21:40.780] that happened, what would I write? If I think about what I'd have to write with regard at [21:40.780 --> 21:45.220] least to the worst thing that's happened in free software, I think this is the letter [21:45.300 --> 21:52.300] I would write. I would never have imagined in 2000 that most of the software that individuals [21:55.140 --> 21:57.860] use, I'm not talking about companies, I'm not talking about business software, I'm talking [21:57.860 --> 22:04.860] about what an individual uses on their mobile device. They pay for their data plan, but [22:04.900 --> 22:11.900] they don't pay for any software. People don't like apps that even cost a dollar. They download [22:12.900 --> 22:19.900] the Free As In Price app that will put advertising in their face, and they live without advertising [22:22.020 --> 22:28.020] all day long. Now I knew advertising funded things. In the 80s, I watched television. [22:28.020 --> 22:32.020] I watched television before there were VCRs. By the way, for those who don't know, VCR [22:32.020 --> 22:39.020] was a thing we had before there were DVRs, but I predate the VCR, so I remember watching [22:39.020 --> 22:43.180] commercials. I remember the best thing you had to get through commercials was the mute [22:43.180 --> 22:45.700] button, so you could mute it when the commercial was on, so you didn't have to listen to it, [22:45.700 --> 22:50.700] but you had to see it because you had to see them show it back. Obviously advertising [22:50.700 --> 22:56.700] is a huge part of culture and how certain things got funded, but the idea that advertising [22:56.700 --> 23:01.980] would be the primary funding of software that the biggest, most powerful software companies [23:01.980 --> 23:07.980] in the world were actually, in fact, advertising companies, I would never have predicted that. [23:08.940 --> 23:12.460] On the other hand, when I think about the thought experiment of, could I go back in [23:12.460 --> 23:17.060] time and tell myself that, or write myself a letter that I could read, I can't think [23:17.060 --> 23:21.380] about what I would do differently. How could we have prevented that? I'm not really sure [23:21.380 --> 23:26.180] if the Free Software Movement could have prevented the advertising industry from taking over [23:26.180 --> 23:33.180] the software industry. What would we have done differently? I think the only thing I [23:34.020 --> 23:41.020] could think of is how we handled DRM. In 2002, it was the first time, a session was actually [23:41.780 --> 23:47.760] told me this, that the MPAA session used to work for EFF said, hey, the MPAA has started [23:47.760 --> 23:54.420] using this, DRM is inevitable, marketing, like this is going to happen. I don't think [23:54.420 --> 24:01.420] we did enough to fight DRM. We really thought that technologists would find DRM so despicable [24:01.980 --> 24:05.980] that they wouldn't help create it, that they wouldn't be part of a culture that created [24:05.980 --> 24:10.780] it. We thought we were going to beat DRM. In fact, I did a lot of work in the US in [24:10.780 --> 24:16.580] the early 2000s with this thing called the broadcast flag, which the MPAA and other rights [24:16.580 --> 24:23.580] holders associations wanted to make it so that you couldn't record over-the-air broadcast [24:24.180 --> 24:29.380] television. We had this huge win. We're like we won. There's no broadcast flag. We can [24:29.420 --> 24:34.700] have absolutely, I still to this day have 100% free software DVR that can record over-the-air, [24:34.700 --> 24:40.340] but I think I'm the last person who's still recording over-the-air. It's all in the internet [24:40.340 --> 24:47.340] now and all of it is DRM. The worst thing was that we just conceded to DRM. There was this [24:50.700 --> 24:55.700] big announcement that Firefox, that Mozilla made about Firefox, that they were going to [24:55.700 --> 25:01.740] do it happily because as Mitchell Baker, the CEO, put it, we want to serve our users [25:01.740 --> 25:06.540] and they want DRM so we're going to give it to them because that's what our users want. [25:06.540 --> 25:12.140] The only reason they were able to do that is because Firefox was under a weak copy left [25:12.140 --> 25:18.060] license that allows proprietary plugins. It's easy to pick on a wealthy CEO like Mitchell [25:18.060 --> 25:23.660] Baker, of course, but we also had the W3C which just gave in and said we're going to [25:23.700 --> 25:27.700] do a standard for DRM. We're just like oh, okay, we're going to let that happen. I'm [25:27.700 --> 25:32.220] not saying lots of people in this room probably protested, complained about blog posts, but [25:32.220 --> 25:37.020] I'm talking as a culture. We accepted it. There were not enough of a coalition of people [25:37.020 --> 25:44.020] saying we will not accept DRM. Are we really anti-DRM? Did we really say, hey, this is [25:45.020 --> 25:52.020] not okay. We're not going to go after people for copying things. It's certainly not non-commercially. [25:55.500 --> 26:00.500] We weren't always willing to say that apart because GPL was based on copyright. We don't [26:00.500 --> 26:05.780] want to be pro copyright infringement because then we're pro GPL violation, but on the other [26:05.780 --> 26:11.460] hand, kids copying music on the backs of tapes was not the biggest problem in the 80s. The [26:11.500 --> 26:18.500] NPA told us it was, but it wasn't. Kids watching things without DRM today, not the biggest [26:18.500 --> 26:23.220] problem, but we've convinced ourselves that it is and we're happy to accept all that [26:23.220 --> 26:30.220] DRM. I'm very fond of this thought experiment because I think it shows how every person [26:34.060 --> 26:39.820] can make a difference because if we universally made a difference, if every software developer [26:40.100 --> 26:44.180] tomorrow woke up and said, I'm never writing a line of proprietary software, every line [26:44.180 --> 26:48.100] of code I'm going to write is going to be copy lefted from now on and I won't take a [26:48.100 --> 26:54.600] job. I just refuse to take a job writing anything but free software. Everything would change [26:54.600 --> 27:00.340] overnight. Foss would succeed completely. This is unlikely to happen. We're not going [27:00.340 --> 27:05.380] to get universal strike among all software developers, unfortunately, because companies [27:05.420 --> 27:11.500] are willing to pay so much to get people to write proprietary software, but we have to [27:11.500 --> 27:16.380] think about how our individual actions are actually impacting us. The compromises we [27:16.380 --> 27:23.380] make about this kind of stuff are part of the problem. They are part of why we haven't [27:23.420 --> 27:27.100] succeeded in the past and they will prevent us from succeeding in the future if we just [27:27.100 --> 27:34.100] continue to make the compromises that are in front of us. I think we made a tremendous [27:35.020 --> 27:41.020] mistake aligning ourselves with companies. I gave a talk, or I got to do a main track [27:41.020 --> 27:44.420] talk a couple years ago at FOSDEM and somebody came up to me after and said, I think the [27:44.420 --> 27:49.420] biggest problem we had with free software was successful and I was like, what do you [27:49.420 --> 27:56.420] mean? And this point was a really good one, which was we were not prepared for the power [27:56.660 --> 28:03.660] imbalance on the other side as free software became popular and as such we were not equipped [28:04.180 --> 28:10.260] to do that. The idea that companies would just flagrantly violate copy left license such [28:10.260 --> 28:15.340] that 98% of the products on the market that have Linux in them are violating the GPL and [28:15.340 --> 28:21.460] it's really hard to do anything about it, somebody has to do with how quickly Linux [28:21.460 --> 28:25.980] became popular. If we had toiled in obscurity for a lot longer we might have been more prepared [28:25.980 --> 28:31.140] when we were finally adopted and maybe it's because we kind of made too much of a deal [28:31.140 --> 28:35.900] with unbridled capitalism that has been able to do so much co-option. I look at things [28:35.900 --> 28:40.020] now like inner source where companies are like, you know what we should do? We should [28:40.020 --> 28:45.860] develop all of the proprietary software using all the methodologies that free software uses [28:45.860 --> 28:51.460] and this is a thing that people are excited about, that this is a great idea. That's co-option, [28:51.460 --> 28:57.380] that's taking what we were doing better and using it against what we were trying to accomplish [28:57.380 --> 29:01.620] and I think we should be willing to call that out and say that's not what we were trying [29:01.620 --> 29:07.900] to do and we don't want to see proprietary software developed. The hobbyist culture was [29:07.900 --> 29:14.900] essential to the success of open source and free software. I think in the hobbyist culture [29:16.220 --> 29:21.260] of the 90s that created free software were kind of the seeds of its own destruction because [29:21.260 --> 29:26.380] to have a hobbyist culture particularly with technology where devices are expensive to [29:26.420 --> 29:31.980] get, just the hardware itself is expensive. You need a certain amount of personal financial [29:31.980 --> 29:37.020] stability, leisure time that people have which they, in industrialized nations and wealthy [29:37.020 --> 29:42.780] nations that they don't have in other nations. So it's very difficult to create this non-commercial [29:42.780 --> 29:47.980] hobbyist activity in a culture where people have to work all the time just to make a living [29:47.980 --> 29:51.660] and they can't seem to get ahead, they can't seem to be able to afford their own home. All [29:51.660 --> 29:57.980] these things that we now face as larger social problems that are expanding all over the world [29:57.980 --> 30:02.780] at this point. So I'm not sure how we solve that as free software activists but we at [30:02.780 --> 30:08.340] least have to acknowledge that without people having a certain amount of ability to take [30:08.340 --> 30:14.080] a breath and think I'd rather put my time towards something else, at least my free time [30:14.080 --> 30:19.260] if I have any, towards something good. I don't know how, I don't have a solution to that [30:19.300 --> 30:26.300] because I'm not that kind of activist, I'm a FOS activist but I am worried that the larger [30:26.700 --> 30:32.380] changes in society that are negative will have a particularly bad impact on the ability [30:32.380 --> 30:38.540] for free software to succeed in the next decade or so. So anyway, that's a couple of my thoughts [30:38.540 --> 30:43.260] about this. I'd be glad to take questions. This is, I'm not forgetting pretty radical [30:43.260 --> 30:49.260] talks. I actually asked my executive director Karen Sandler if it was okay if I said the [30:49.260 --> 30:55.180] words anti-capitalist a lot and she said it was okay but yeah, I'm sure some people will [30:55.180 --> 30:59.180] not agree with me and I'd be glad to take questions if I have any time left. [30:59.180 --> 31:00.180] Okay, great. [31:00.180 --> 31:01.180] I signed it. [31:01.180 --> 31:02.180] You're done? [31:02.180 --> 31:05.180] I said when I was seeing the assignments to have questions. [31:05.180 --> 31:06.180] Yeah, okay. [31:06.180 --> 31:11.220] At the end you said the larger changes you think are going to continue to have problems. [31:11.220 --> 31:12.780] What larger changes are you talking about? [31:12.780 --> 31:19.700] Well, I think that I look at a lot of things that folks who are much younger than me are [31:19.700 --> 31:24.700] saying. Even in the United States, which is a very wealthy nation, I hear 20-year-olds [31:24.700 --> 31:29.020] saying I can't figure out how to afford a house. I can't figure out how to not have [31:29.020 --> 31:35.020] to work all the time and that kind of culture where you're so, and you look at the health [31:35.020 --> 31:38.100] care system in the United States, those in the U.S. know what I'm talking about, everybody [31:38.100 --> 31:42.460] else around the world just thinks we're silly, but those kinds of problems where you don't [31:42.820 --> 31:47.820] have enough space to feel you can tell your employer, I'm not doing this because it's [31:47.820 --> 31:53.420] wrong. I think capitalism, particularly, has set up a system where it's very frightening [31:53.420 --> 31:55.420] for someone to lose their job. [31:55.420 --> 31:59.300] And you're predicting this is going to continue on this path and get worse? [31:59.300 --> 32:03.300] I don't know, because I don't do that kind of activism. I don't know. I hope it doesn't, [32:03.300 --> 32:10.380] but I think it's probably going to get somewhat worse before it gets better. That's my concern. [32:10.780 --> 32:15.780] Great talk. Really enjoyed it. In particular, I liked how you... [32:15.780 --> 32:18.780] Just talk louder because that mic needs more... [32:18.780 --> 32:25.780] I'll try to shout, maybe, my mask on. I like how you portrayed a lot of the issues around [32:26.620 --> 32:31.020] coalition building throughout your career. Getting people together, but making sure that [32:31.020 --> 32:36.460] you're actually together on the same page. When thinking about the future of free software [32:36.540 --> 32:42.540] in this continued coalition building, one thing I noticed is there seems to be a significant [32:42.540 --> 32:49.540] lack of what I would call a political line within the movement. Agreeing what is the [32:49.620 --> 32:56.620] purpose of us working together? What are the political goals of our interactions and coalition? [32:57.100 --> 33:02.900] Do you see anything... I'm just curious about your thoughts about building this understanding [33:02.900 --> 33:07.420] of what our political goals are. Maybe an example of this is the four freedoms from [33:07.420 --> 33:13.780] Richard Stallman. It's focused on user autonomy, and this is really what we're trying to do. [33:13.780 --> 33:18.980] Now when we hear about open source and free software, many times people are not talking [33:18.980 --> 33:23.820] about user autonomy, but rather this is an efficient way of working together. This is [33:23.820 --> 33:28.820] just a way I can work with, quote, unquote, smart people. I'll get off my soapbox. [33:29.740 --> 33:34.940] I think it's a good point that you're raising. I think what I'm trying to say, at least this [33:34.940 --> 33:40.100] particular moment, which I'm not saying this is definitely right, it's what I'm thinking [33:40.100 --> 33:46.100] about, is that I think the coalitions we built in the past were in some ways the wrong coalitions. [33:46.100 --> 33:52.100] Our desperation to get for profit companies to adopt open source software, and almost [33:52.100 --> 33:56.780] willing to do anything throughout the late 90s and the early 2000s to get them on board [33:56.780 --> 34:01.780] and excited, I think we made tons of compromises we shouldn't have made, and we weren't busy [34:01.780 --> 34:07.660] billing coalitions with other social justice movements, for example. I remember distinctly [34:07.660 --> 34:11.700] I was living in New York City when Occupy Wall Street was going on, and I was going [34:11.700 --> 34:15.140] into the office of the place I was working at the time and worrying about what companies [34:15.140 --> 34:19.980] were going to do what and how we were going to basically help them do open source, and [34:19.980 --> 34:24.260] I'm like, maybe I should be down there talking to the people who work at Occupy Wall Street [34:24.260 --> 34:28.900] about free software instead. And so I think that the coalitions we need to build are other [34:28.900 --> 34:34.620] people who are trying to do the kinds of things that the individual focus of free software [34:34.620 --> 34:39.300] was trying to do, people who are saying we need more egalitarian things. We should be [34:39.300 --> 34:43.620] working with people who are trying to unionize. I mean, I give a hard time to Amazon employees [34:43.620 --> 34:47.180] because the Amazon employees who are all at this conference are being well paid to do [34:47.180 --> 34:51.680] software stuff, but every time I talk to them I say, you know your company's union busting [34:51.680 --> 34:55.920] all over the US, people just want to unionize. Like, I think we should be building coalitions [34:55.920 --> 34:59.440] with the people who want to unionize against Amazon, not trying to convince Amazon to write [34:59.440 --> 35:01.440] more free software. [35:01.440 --> 35:10.440] Thank you. So I noticed that as part of this you very much talk about developers and hobbyists [35:10.440 --> 35:15.440] and those kind of sit between, or maybe not between, but you have corporations on one [35:15.440 --> 35:19.440] side and on the other side we have users. And you give the example of Firefox where [35:19.440 --> 35:26.440] we gave in and accepted DRM. I'd posit that without Firefox using DRM it might have a [35:26.440 --> 35:32.640] tenth of users it has now, and it's already a small player because users wanted DRM. So [35:32.640 --> 35:38.680] really what I was wondering about is your reflections on how much we should be doing [35:38.680 --> 35:46.000] more or less with users that don't care about code and maybe how we convince them to care [35:46.000 --> 35:51.280] about the movements, or if that's just a dead end and we should focus on trying to find [35:51.280 --> 35:54.680] solidarity within the development community. [35:54.680 --> 35:59.600] I'm not sure. I think both issues are important and I'm not sure what we should spend most [35:59.600 --> 36:04.160] of our attention on. I think we probably have to try from both directions and different [36:04.160 --> 36:09.240] people with different skills in the free software movement should take the path that works best [36:09.240 --> 36:14.920] for them. If you're better at convincing users to adopt free software, getting your [36:14.960 --> 36:19.640] family to install a free software system instead of their Windows and Macs machines, if that's [36:19.640 --> 36:22.560] the kind of thing you're good at that's where you should be focused on. I'm not very good [36:22.560 --> 36:27.680] at that. I'm much more comfortable talking to developers myself. One of the reasons that, [36:27.680 --> 36:32.440] and this is possibly post-doc self-justification because it's easier for me to talk to developers [36:32.440 --> 36:37.400] than non-developers, but I kind of feel like it's back to that thought experiment. If I [36:37.400 --> 36:42.120] can convince more developers to not write proprietary software there will be less proprietary [36:42.120 --> 36:49.120] software for all these users to get stuck in out there in the world. We have to understand [36:50.120 --> 36:55.600] as developers, we have a lot of power to make these decisions for users. The biggest decision [36:55.600 --> 37:00.560] you make is whether your software that you write is going to be proprietary or free software [37:00.560 --> 37:04.880] and if it's proprietary software, you're just out of the gate being bad to users. That's [37:04.880 --> 37:08.400] not saying that there's not lots of, I've used a lot of free software that's not very [37:08.480 --> 37:12.760] good. I know that sometimes free software is bad to users too, but it's not bad to users [37:12.760 --> 37:17.240] out of the gate in the way that proprietary is. That's why I tend to focus on developers, [37:17.240 --> 37:22.160] but I agree that we have to build much broader coalitions which includes meaning talking to [37:22.160 --> 37:25.480] people who are developers. Those in the room, if you're good at it, please do it. I'm just [37:25.480 --> 37:27.080] not very good at it. [37:27.080 --> 37:32.880] I've spent the last 10 years or so essentially trying to do the sorts of things you're advocating [37:32.880 --> 37:39.880] people should do. When I've been working in organizations that were developing pieces [37:40.080 --> 37:45.880] of software, I've been the one advocating for using copy left licenses, not non-copy [37:45.880 --> 37:52.880] left free licenses and not proprietary. Outside of that, in activism, I've tried to encourage [37:54.800 --> 38:01.800] groups to use free software instead of proprietary tools. In both of these contexts, I've tried [38:03.560 --> 38:08.560] to encourage groups to use free software. I've been kind of othered by these groups. I've [38:08.560 --> 38:13.560] been seen as an obstacle in those organizations and in some cases pushed out because I'm not [38:13.560 --> 38:20.060] willing to release my code under proprietary and non-copy left licenses. I've been unable [38:20.060 --> 38:27.060] to participate in social justice groups because they want me to use WhatsApp. What more can [38:27.620 --> 38:29.620] I do? [38:29.620 --> 38:36.620] I think the fortunate thing is some of that's changing because I think mainly because of [38:36.620 --> 38:41.460] mass surveillance. I think most social justice groups basically understand now that there's [38:41.460 --> 38:46.900] a lot of danger in using corporate controlled software like the Google Apps, like using [38:46.900 --> 38:50.060] Google Calendar to plan your protests and all these sorts of things. People are starting [38:50.060 --> 38:55.180] to realize that's a big mistake. One of the things you have to be willing to do as an [38:55.220 --> 38:59.140] activist, and I've learned this now that I'm old, I've learned that you have to be willing [38:59.140 --> 39:04.420] to revisit things you tried in the past even though it was painful. I hear that that was [39:04.420 --> 39:08.100] painful for you to go through that and be kind of othered in that way. I've been through [39:08.100 --> 39:12.140] similar experiences, but I think you just kind of got to get up the next morning and [39:12.140 --> 39:17.820] be like, I'm going to try again. Maybe it'll all happen the same way, but of course there's [39:17.820 --> 39:22.660] generations coming up that are new. There's so many people out there that are completely [39:22.660 --> 39:27.420] new to this and will not necessarily react the same way. I'm actually very hopeful about [39:27.420 --> 39:34.420] younger people because I think the people who are in there like 18 to 20 right now, [39:34.700 --> 39:38.100] I think they have a much different attitude and it's a much more anti-corporate attitude. [39:38.100 --> 39:42.660] It kind of fits with the way I felt when I was their age. I feel like my generation, [39:42.660 --> 39:47.180] I was rare in feeling that way, but it seems to be common in that age group right now. [39:47.180 --> 39:51.300] I think there might be hope to try it again even though it might be painful to make a [39:51.340 --> 39:52.300] go at it again. [39:52.300 --> 39:59.300] Well, first of all, Bradley, let me say I really enjoyed your talk, and yes, I am also [39:59.660 --> 40:06.660] over 30 hex. You mentioned in the time machine one of the things that maybe we made a mistake [40:07.940 --> 40:14.940] on was focusing on commercial adoption of FOS, but there's another issue at hand you [40:15.140 --> 40:22.140] didn't really address, and that is that our classic open source free software licenses [40:22.220 --> 40:27.220] don't read on some of the technologies that have emerged. In the early days, we had this [40:27.220 --> 40:32.940] quaint notion of a CPU and a desktop underneath our desk and a keyboard above it, and that [40:32.940 --> 40:39.940] was the machine on which we ran binaries. But fast forward, you knew about services [40:40.940 --> 40:46.660] and played an enormous part in the drafting of the AGPL license. Maybe you would have liked [40:46.660 --> 40:53.660] an LAGPL license, but what about the current state of affairs with composable network services [40:55.100 --> 41:00.100] where none of our licenses read on the use of that kind of software? [41:00.100 --> 41:06.600] Yeah, I think we have to invent around in that case. I do think the FRGPL helps in that [41:06.600 --> 41:11.240] case because if you write replacements that are FRGPL, there's still some hope there, [41:11.240 --> 41:16.880] but I think it goes more back to the advertising issue, which I don't have any solution for. [41:16.880 --> 41:21.760] It's really hard to compete with free as in price. It's one of the things that was true [41:21.760 --> 41:28.760] of free software that we got a lot of adoption because SlayerSex86 was $450 and Linux was [41:29.040 --> 41:36.040] free as in price, and I think that until we figure out how to crack that nut of, gee, [41:37.000 --> 41:39.880] people are willing to accept advertising, I think actually we should start advocating [41:39.880 --> 41:45.520] more about how dangerous that kind of advertising is and how insidious it is and how it's bad [41:45.520 --> 41:50.440] for activists, it's bad for everybody to be bombarded with advertising all the time because [41:50.440 --> 41:55.440] once that changes, it would switch us back to the old proprietary model. If people reject [41:55.440 --> 41:59.600] advertising and say, well, the only way I can reject advertising is I have to pay $50 [41:59.600 --> 42:06.600] a month for Google Calendar, they might well try a next cloud in that case. [42:08.040 --> 42:15.040] I have a comment actually about your thought experiment, so I can imagine that's your point [42:15.360 --> 42:22.360] of view coming from the US, but actually in the Balkans we have a different kind of problem, [42:22.780 --> 42:29.780] so we have people who want to work on an open source, but they can't get any funding for [42:33.080 --> 42:40.080] it, so we are talking about people who are working for, let's say, 12 to 15k a year, [42:40.080 --> 42:47.080] so asking them to quit their jobs, that's like criminal. [42:58.840 --> 43:04.640] I'm pretty sure that everyone in the world, there are opportunities for smart people that [43:04.640 --> 43:11.240] aren't writing software, and if it's really true that there is a state in the world where [43:11.240 --> 43:15.880] the only job a smart person can get if they're educated, like you would have to be to write [43:15.880 --> 43:20.800] software, is to write software, I'd love to hear more about that place because it sounds [43:20.800 --> 43:26.880] very strange to me that there isn't other choices in life that you could get as a qualified, [43:26.880 --> 43:32.560] good, intelligent person. Writing software can't be the only job available in the world. [43:32.640 --> 43:36.320] I'd be surprised, but I'd love to talk to you after if you want to tell me about what [43:36.320 --> 43:41.320] it's like in the Balkans where everybody has to write software for a living. [43:41.320 --> 43:48.320] I'm curious about your take on the government policies. You mentioned unions, maybe to make [43:51.160 --> 43:57.760] a progress, but FSFE has a fantastic campaign, public money, public code, or the restaurant [43:57.760 --> 44:02.160] tech fund in Germany to finance open source ecosystem with public money. Do you have any [44:02.240 --> 44:03.240] take on this? [44:03.240 --> 44:09.960] Well, I think it's correct. I mean, I agree with the campaign. I think it's a good campaign. [44:09.960 --> 44:12.840] One of the things that I'm really concerned about, I don't know if this has happened in [44:12.840 --> 44:17.920] Europe as much as it has happened in the U.S., but there is a lot of pressure in the United [44:17.920 --> 44:24.640] States because of corporations that the code that's funded by public funds must be under [44:24.640 --> 44:31.120] non-copyleft licenses because corporations want the government code that they can take [44:31.120 --> 44:37.520] and incorporate into proprietary products. To the extent to which public money is funding [44:37.520 --> 44:43.440] non-copylifting code, it's kind of a handout to big corporations that want to make more [44:43.440 --> 44:47.400] proprietary software. That's the only thing I'm worried about in that kind of campaign [44:47.400 --> 44:51.560] is making sure that the public money is going to code that will stay public, that will stay [44:51.560 --> 44:56.760] free software, and the only way, it's not perfect, but the best way we have to do that [44:56.760 --> 44:59.200] right now is copyleft licenses. [45:00.200 --> 45:04.520] Thanks for the talk. It was interesting. My question is also about this trend on digital [45:04.520 --> 45:08.960] sovereignty because I found your talk interesting, but very American in you. I mean, both in [45:08.960 --> 45:12.920] the history part, because in Europe, often software was made by people that were communist [45:12.920 --> 45:17.800] and were trying to build something alternative to capitalism, but also in your reference [45:17.800 --> 45:23.440] to companies. Because in Europe now, we do have a system of smaller, maybe smaller, medium [45:23.440 --> 45:27.440] open source companies that are not just motivated by making money and taking the government [45:27.480 --> 45:33.480] away. They are really motivated by building an alternative to the dominant big tech technologies. [45:33.480 --> 45:38.120] And maybe to solve what they see as the real failure of the open source movement, which [45:38.120 --> 45:43.520] is failing to avoid all the software bases to be used to build wall gardens and closed [45:43.520 --> 45:47.160] systems on the cloud, because everything is now on the cloud. So there are companies [45:47.160 --> 45:51.440] that are exploiting this just to make that. So I was wondering whether you think that [45:51.440 --> 45:56.560] all this coordinate approach between the European industry and the governments and new regulations, [45:56.680 --> 46:00.560] like digital markets, could be a solution that brings more freedom into the back of the [46:00.560 --> 46:01.560] country. [46:01.560 --> 46:05.040] Yeah. I mean, I think the EU is a much better place right now than the United States. That's [46:05.040 --> 46:10.520] definitely true. My big concern as somebody from the U.S. is the cultural imperialism that [46:10.520 --> 46:17.520] the U.S. has kind of pushed through technology. I think it's just absolutely disgusting that [46:19.040 --> 46:24.880] a couple of U.S. corporations, which are effectively thinking of themselves as software companies, [46:24.880 --> 46:31.040] have such dangerous global power. And I think it's beholden on people in the U.S. in particular [46:31.040 --> 46:37.320] to fight against that. And I find that people in my country are hard to convince to really [46:37.320 --> 46:42.720] fight against that. And it's trickling through the world, right? Because you have, I mean, [46:42.720 --> 46:48.400] I look at the EU doing these great regulations that are really advancing things. Like I love [46:48.400 --> 46:53.920] getting off a plane and seeing all the cookie pop-ups that I don't see at home. And there [46:53.960 --> 46:58.260] is regulation. It's forcing U.S. companies to comply with it. But they give you so much [46:58.260 --> 47:03.760] pushback and they have so much power to give you pushback that I just want to, you know, [47:03.760 --> 47:09.260] I want to have a revolution in my country to solve this problem, right? Because this kind [47:09.260 --> 47:15.760] of imperialism through corporate power is revolting. But I do think there's a lot more [47:15.760 --> 47:21.400] hope outside of the U.S. at this point. [47:21.560 --> 47:27.560] I was wondering if you could comment on the Cyber Resilience Act and the effects, I mean, [47:27.560 --> 47:33.080] it would have effects obviously in Europe but in the global market. And we were talking [47:33.080 --> 47:39.080] earlier about commercial versus non-commercial. And I know in the text it's also talking about [47:39.080 --> 47:43.840] these issues. So I'm wondering if you have any guidance in terms of potentially coalition [47:43.840 --> 47:50.840] building around making sure that the Cyber Resilience Act is effective and good for [47:50.840 --> 47:51.840] the community? [47:51.840 --> 47:57.320] Yeah, I'm just not an expert on the Cyber Resilience Act. So it's hard for me to answer. But I [47:57.320 --> 48:04.320] think probably folks at FCEF Europe will be good to talk to, maybe. But yeah, I wish I [48:04.760 --> 48:10.200] could say more and I would like to learn more. But I just don't have the expertise to line [48:10.200 --> 48:14.480] it up with that. But I hope people in the room who are more informed and smarter than [48:14.480 --> 48:16.640] I am would be able to do that. [48:16.640 --> 48:20.880] Maybe to quickly add to this. So like two hours ago there was a session which is also [48:20.880 --> 48:26.800] recorded from the Jason Room, the European Commission. And in general it's about liability. [48:26.800 --> 48:31.160] So we also have the Product Liability Directive in the AI Act. So three files addressing this [48:31.160 --> 48:37.520] question of liability in the term of non-commercial, putting something into market. I suggest [48:37.520 --> 48:41.640] you just watch this session from the morning again and then also you can shoot us an email [48:41.640 --> 48:48.640] and we can bring you in the discussion group on this particular question. [48:59.080 --> 49:03.040] Thanks for your talk. I think the one thing that I'm missing from here is a vision for [49:03.040 --> 49:09.040] how the whole system is going to work. So I work as a software developer on a copy left [49:09.120 --> 49:13.880] piece of software. And I also kind of have a side project that I'm trying to do kind [49:13.880 --> 49:19.120] of in my free time. And the amount of throughput that I can get on the work that I do for [49:19.120 --> 49:25.120] my day job is just, you know, in a way or magnitude more than I can do kind of in my free time. [49:25.120 --> 49:32.120] And if, and so, I don't know exactly what I'm saying, but I think there's good businesses [49:32.120 --> 49:39.120] and there's bad, good ways to do business, bad ways to do business, right? And the best [49:39.640 --> 49:45.640] way, the only sustainable way to lift someone out of poverty permanently is to give them [49:45.640 --> 49:52.640] a good job, right? And so, I mean, having a thing where basically all software is written [49:52.760 --> 49:59.760] by hobbyists doesn't really seem like a sustainable kind of a feature. So I'm wondering if there's [49:59.760 --> 50:05.120] like part of what we need is not just to say, well, what's happening now is bad, but like [50:05.120 --> 50:10.760] a vision for how it could be in the future that's better. Do you have any ideas for that? [50:10.760 --> 50:14.400] Or even, you know, things inspired, you know, from like, you know, cooperatives or things [50:14.400 --> 50:21.400] from middle ages like, you know, what is this called, guilds or things like that. Like, [50:24.680 --> 50:29.120] where there's large organizations that are not designed for profit but designed to achieve [50:29.160 --> 50:33.480] in a certain goal. So if I had a comprehensive solution, I obviously would have presented [50:33.480 --> 50:39.680] it, right? I've been around long enough that I see clearly where we went wrong, but as [50:39.680 --> 50:42.960] I was saying, even if I were to go back in time, I don't know if I would be able to make [50:42.960 --> 50:49.960] the right choices to make it better. I certainly see one key component which is what changed [50:50.200 --> 50:57.200] from the past was people now who write open source in their day job, which is just open [50:58.120 --> 51:03.120] source companies want. They're kind of gladly saying, well, I do open source in my day job [51:03.120 --> 51:08.440] and now I'm paid for it, so I don't have to volunteer for anything. And I think that [51:08.440 --> 51:13.840] has to change. I think people have to be willing to, if they are lucky enough to have a high [51:13.840 --> 51:18.320] paying job, they should be willing to volunteer on their spare time to do something to make [51:18.320 --> 51:19.320] a change. [51:19.320 --> 51:22.320] Okay. Thanks, Bradley. [51:22.320 --> 51:23.480] Thank you.