[00:00.000 --> 00:13.000] Please give a warm welcome to our next speaker, Pam Chastak. [00:13.000 --> 00:16.000] All right. [00:16.000 --> 00:19.000] I hear my mic working. [00:19.000 --> 00:23.000] So I am here on behalf of the Open Source Initiative, [00:23.000 --> 00:25.000] of which I am a board member, [00:25.000 --> 00:27.000] to talk about some changes that we just announced, [00:27.000 --> 00:30.000] or let me put it this way, draft proposed changes. [00:30.000 --> 00:33.000] That's why we're here, is to kind of discuss these changes [00:33.000 --> 00:37.000] and discuss, improve, take comments on these proposed changes [00:37.000 --> 00:40.000] to the license review process. [00:40.000 --> 00:42.000] Let's see. [00:42.000 --> 00:46.000] So just the background, the first meeting was November 2020, [00:46.000 --> 00:49.000] which was a long time ago, and we had COVID. [00:49.000 --> 00:52.000] So, you know, our timelines ran long, [00:52.000 --> 00:55.000] and our last meeting was September 23rd, [00:55.000 --> 00:57.000] and these were the participants in the working group [00:57.000 --> 00:59.000] that we had set up for this, [00:59.000 --> 01:01.000] which I'm very pleased with this group of participants. [01:01.000 --> 01:05.000] I think we had a really nice array of different voices [01:05.000 --> 01:08.000] and different thoughts and different backgrounds [01:08.000 --> 01:11.000] who participated. [01:11.000 --> 01:13.000] So the announcement, it was announced, [01:13.000 --> 01:17.000] this draft proposal was announced on the OSI website. [01:17.000 --> 01:21.000] I apologize for the long URLs, which are useful to no one. [01:21.000 --> 01:23.000] But if you go to the OSI website, [01:23.000 --> 01:26.000] you should go to the blogs, you should be able to find it. [01:26.000 --> 01:28.000] It may still be the top one. [01:28.000 --> 01:30.000] I want to say that there also is, [01:30.000 --> 01:35.000] these proposal is on the open source initiatives Wiki page. [01:35.000 --> 01:38.000] We have a Wiki page for it, it's on the Wiki site. [01:38.000 --> 01:42.000] And that is where all feedback on these proposed comments [01:42.000 --> 01:45.000] should be placed. [01:45.000 --> 01:47.000] So I'm here, I'm going to take questions, [01:47.000 --> 01:49.000] we'll have plenty of time to talk about it, [01:49.000 --> 01:53.000] but in order to allow everybody to have, [01:53.000 --> 01:55.000] see everybody's input and comments, [01:55.000 --> 01:58.000] we are asking that all of the comments be added to the Wiki page. [01:58.000 --> 02:01.000] So if you have something here that you think is important, [02:01.000 --> 02:03.000] in addition to hearing from it, [02:03.000 --> 02:06.000] here I would also like you to take the time [02:06.000 --> 02:10.000] to put it on the Wiki page so whether people can react to it. [02:10.000 --> 02:13.000] And the Wiki page is linked from the blog post. [02:13.000 --> 02:15.000] Again, I apologize about the links. [02:15.000 --> 02:18.000] So outside of the scope of this working group [02:18.000 --> 02:20.000] and the OSD itself, [02:20.000 --> 02:22.000] we did not discuss whether the OSD is appropriate [02:22.000 --> 02:26.000] or not a conversation that comes up every so often. [02:26.000 --> 02:30.000] And we also didn't talk specifically about the tooling for the process. [02:30.000 --> 02:33.000] So at the moment we use an email listserv, [02:33.000 --> 02:36.000] we have acknowledged for years that this is maybe not the best [02:36.000 --> 02:40.000] type of technology to use for this process, [02:40.000 --> 02:43.000] for the license review process, it's what we have now. [02:43.000 --> 02:47.000] The OSI has a parallel project of trying to identify [02:47.000 --> 02:53.000] a better tooling system for taking in licenses, [02:53.000 --> 02:56.000] asking for review, and giving feedback on those licenses, [02:56.000 --> 02:58.000] and eventually making a decision. [02:58.000 --> 03:03.000] So what we did here and the tooling are obviously very interrelated [03:03.000 --> 03:05.000] because if we want changes to the process, [03:05.000 --> 03:07.000] that needs to be implemented in the tooling. [03:07.000 --> 03:11.000] So they do interact with each other, [03:11.000 --> 03:13.000] but we stayed away from tooling and just assumed [03:13.000 --> 03:17.000] that these issues could be handled and what we're going to do. [03:17.000 --> 03:22.000] So these were the questions that were proposed [03:22.000 --> 03:25.000] for the licensing for the working group to work on. [03:25.000 --> 03:29.000] We're evaluating the criteria for approving licenses, [03:29.000 --> 03:33.000] we're evaluating the process for considering licenses, [03:33.000 --> 03:38.000] we're evaluating the current categories for licenses, [03:38.000 --> 03:41.000] and evaluating whether there should be a process [03:41.000 --> 03:43.000] for decertifying licenses. [03:43.000 --> 03:47.000] On the last one, we ended up not getting to that one [03:47.000 --> 03:49.000] because when we got to that one, first off, [03:49.000 --> 03:51.000] we had been taking a really long time, [03:51.000 --> 03:55.000] and in looking at this last one, we realized that there were [03:55.000 --> 03:59.000] many, many, many facts about the use of licenses [03:59.000 --> 04:02.000] that might potentially be decertified that we didn't know, [04:02.000 --> 04:06.000] and it would take a really long time to find those facts. [04:06.000 --> 04:10.000] So for example, what are the licenses that one might consider [04:10.000 --> 04:13.000] decertifying? How are they being used? [04:13.000 --> 04:16.000] What are the knock-on effects of removing that? [04:16.000 --> 04:18.000] So for example, is there a business out there [04:18.000 --> 04:20.000] that's marketing itself as an open-source company, [04:20.000 --> 04:22.000] but we say, no, by the way, [04:22.000 --> 04:24.000] we don't consider your license open-source anymore. [04:24.000 --> 04:27.000] What kind of impact is that going to have on that company? [04:27.000 --> 04:30.000] What about companies that ingest licenses based on the fact [04:30.000 --> 04:32.000] that they've been approved by the open-source initiative, [04:32.000 --> 04:35.000] and we say, by the way, this one's not approved. [04:35.000 --> 04:38.000] How is that going to change their software stack? [04:38.000 --> 04:42.000] So these were all things that we were completely in the dark about, [04:42.000 --> 04:46.000] so that we took that off of the table for this group. [04:46.000 --> 04:50.000] I would very much like to see another working group start [04:50.000 --> 04:52.000] shortly to start working on that project, [04:52.000 --> 04:54.000] because I think it is a valid project. [04:54.000 --> 04:58.000] It just was something that we didn't have time for. [04:58.000 --> 05:01.000] And frankly, I'm looking for someone else to lead that, [05:01.000 --> 05:06.000] because I also continue to work on this piece of the project. [05:06.000 --> 05:10.000] Okay, I'll try to get done what we're going to see. [05:10.000 --> 05:18.000] So these were sort of some bigger picture things that we came up with. [05:18.000 --> 05:25.000] One was we agreed that the OSI will not be providing information, [05:25.000 --> 05:30.000] recommendations that be providing advice on the use or adoption of the licenses. [05:30.000 --> 05:32.000] This is too fact-based. [05:33.000 --> 05:37.000] These choices about use and adoption of open-source licenses [05:37.000 --> 05:39.000] is very specific to every project. [05:39.000 --> 05:43.000] It's very hard to generalize in a way that is helpful to anyone. [05:43.000 --> 05:45.000] This is an industry. [05:45.000 --> 05:48.000] There are people who do this as their business, [05:48.000 --> 05:51.000] as to advise on adoption of open-source licenses. [05:51.000 --> 05:55.000] So the OSI is not going to be diving into that field. [05:55.000 --> 05:57.000] What we will do in order to facilitate that [05:57.000 --> 06:00.000] is we hope to provide machine-readable tags, [06:00.000 --> 06:02.000] as well as licensed text. [06:02.000 --> 06:07.000] So providing API access to licensed text is a task that is underway. [06:07.000 --> 06:12.000] We hope to provide machine-readable tags to go along with that [06:12.000 --> 06:18.000] in order to provide sort of more digestible information about these licenses. [06:18.000 --> 06:21.000] And again, I confess, you're all going to look at this and say, [06:21.000 --> 06:23.000] there's a giant leap of faith. [06:23.000 --> 06:25.000] There are a couple of giant leaps of faith here, [06:25.000 --> 06:27.000] and this is one of the giant leaps of faith, [06:27.000 --> 06:32.000] and I'm looking to crowdsource both the identification of tags. [06:32.000 --> 06:34.000] We have a preliminary list. [06:34.000 --> 06:39.000] I don't think that that's novel to have identified some tags, [06:39.000 --> 06:42.000] but to identify the tags. [06:42.000 --> 06:44.000] And also, I mean, there are more than 100 licenses, [06:44.000 --> 06:48.000] so we need bodies to go through these licenses [06:48.000 --> 06:53.000] to be able to identify what tags are appropriate for the licenses. [06:53.000 --> 06:57.000] Something like a tag might be, has a trace of venue provision. [06:57.000 --> 06:59.000] A tag might be copy left. [06:59.000 --> 07:03.000] A tag might be attribution requirement. [07:03.000 --> 07:06.000] A couple licenses don't have that, so they would be lacking those tags. [07:06.000 --> 07:14.000] But to help with, you know, these licenses are all unique. [07:14.000 --> 07:16.000] So in some sense, I know that I always say I always go back [07:16.000 --> 07:19.000] and read the license every single time, [07:19.000 --> 07:24.000] but certainly providing some sort of base-level information will be helpful. [07:24.000 --> 07:29.000] We plan to have three categories of licenses, rejected, approved, and preferred. [07:29.000 --> 07:32.000] The word choices are up for discussion. [07:32.000 --> 07:38.000] The preferred is sort of the substitute for what is now called, [07:38.000 --> 07:45.000] and someone can help me, popular, something, something, a very interesting label. [07:45.000 --> 07:50.000] But we're hoping that the preferred tag will be objectively created [07:50.000 --> 07:55.000] from data, hoping to find data on adoption metrics, [07:55.000 --> 08:00.000] as well as using these tags as a filtering mechanism. [08:00.000 --> 08:06.000] So, you know, a license may have an attribute and still be an open-source license, [08:06.000 --> 08:11.000] but it may not be sort of a preferred attribute for a license. [08:11.000 --> 08:15.000] So that, you know, and that's again sort of up for discussion on what are those tags [08:15.000 --> 08:21.000] that would, so it would be some combination of widespread adoption [08:21.000 --> 08:27.000] and, you know, a guaranteed level of sort of what the requirements are. [08:27.000 --> 08:32.000] And we also will hope to provide more information to the public on the decision-making process. [08:32.000 --> 08:36.000] It is a little bit of a mystery, particularly for people who haven't been on license review, [08:36.000 --> 08:42.000] sort of how, who gets to say how it works, we'll try to make that clear to people. [08:42.000 --> 08:45.000] So that's, those are larger concepts. [08:45.000 --> 08:48.000] We identified two different categories of licenses. [08:48.000 --> 08:53.000] This is, again, I think not terribly new concept, legacy licenses and new licenses. [08:53.000 --> 08:57.000] New licenses, by definition, anything that's not a legacy license. [08:57.000 --> 09:03.000] And a legacy license is one, we've just sort of pinned as one that has been in use [09:03.000 --> 09:08.000] for at least five years by more than 20 projects maintained by different unrelated entities. [09:08.000 --> 09:12.000] Again, up for discussion is 20 the right number? Is 100 the right number? [09:12.000 --> 09:18.000] I don't know, but we're welcome feedback on sort of how do we know the point of a legacy license being, [09:18.000 --> 09:27.000] this is a license that is widely in use, but the OSI has not yet passed judgment on it on this license. [09:27.000 --> 09:29.000] So we want to capture those. [09:29.000 --> 09:37.000] So for all licenses, the submission process will, and some of these are old, you know, some of them are not, [09:37.000 --> 09:39.000] some of them exist right now. [09:39.000 --> 09:44.000] We will ask the submitter to affirmatively state that the license complies with the OSD, [09:44.000 --> 09:48.000] including specifically affirming three, five, six and nine. [09:48.000 --> 09:50.000] That's because those are the ones that trip up people. [09:50.000 --> 09:55.000] I mean, we see licenses submitted where clearly the license submitter has never read the OSD. [09:55.000 --> 09:58.000] They just, you know, they just want to call it open source. [09:58.000 --> 10:05.000] Again, there's just a channeling function to just sort of put people through their paces on, did you really think about this? [10:05.000 --> 10:10.000] Ask what projects are already using the license, the identity of the license steward, if known, [10:10.000 --> 10:12.000] we'll try to get in touch with that person. [10:12.000 --> 10:19.000] Providing any additional information, sort of, you know, the fact that maybe Debian has said, has accepted this license [10:19.000 --> 10:28.000] would help inform our decision, gives a unique name, and again, some proposed tags for the license. [10:28.000 --> 10:37.000] This is, because we did not go into de-certifying licenses, instead, one of the rationales for de-certifying licenses is [10:37.000 --> 10:43.000] that we get old licenses that would not now be approved, kind of thrown back at us and say, [10:43.000 --> 10:47.000] well, you know, this was an open source license and it had this attribute. [10:47.000 --> 10:54.000] And so, we're just clearly stating that just because a license was approved in the past with a characteristic does not mean it will be approved again. [10:54.000 --> 11:03.000] So, that was the, so, so, this is for new licenses. [11:03.000 --> 11:06.000] So, I had what happened with legacy license or for all licenses. [11:06.000 --> 11:15.000] In addition for new licenses, the person submitting will describe what gap is not filled by a currently existing license. [11:15.000 --> 11:23.000] Compare it and contrast to the most similar, these already exist, describing illegal review the license has been through, [11:23.000 --> 11:31.000] but we have a new one, we have a new bullet here with the arrow, which is to provide examples of others potential use of the license [11:31.000 --> 11:37.000] to demonstrate that it is not a license that is uniquely usable only by the license submitter. [11:37.000 --> 11:42.000] So, what we're looking for is we want licenses that are going to build community, [11:42.000 --> 11:49.000] and so if you have a license that nobody will ever use, then that will be a hurdle to overcome. [11:49.000 --> 11:53.000] Recommendations for approval of the licenses. [11:53.000 --> 11:59.000] Again, I have three here that are, that have arrows next to that I think are new. [11:59.000 --> 12:09.000] So, we want to see a reusable license that the license can be used by any license or without changing the terms, [12:09.000 --> 12:14.000] or that the license will achieve a different result for a different license or. [12:14.000 --> 12:18.000] So, it needs to function the same way no matter who adopts it. [12:18.000 --> 12:25.000] The license does not have terms that structurally put the license or in a more favored position than any licensee. [12:25.000 --> 12:32.000] So, again, this is a very even-handed, we're trying to build community here, not give anybody an advantage. [12:32.000 --> 12:36.000] I mean, I will say some of these are designed at ferreting out. [12:36.000 --> 12:43.000] Companies that are trying to get that moniker were open source, but they really have no intention of building community. [12:43.000 --> 12:46.000] They have no intention of having their software shared. [12:46.000 --> 12:49.000] They just want to use this term as a marketing tool. [12:49.000 --> 12:53.000] So, that's what we're looking for. [12:53.000 --> 12:58.000] The ambiguity must not have a material effect. [12:58.000 --> 13:08.000] There must be licenses that are, you know, a lot of them are not written in a way that is subject to clear legal interpretation. [13:08.000 --> 13:11.000] So, we want to, that we will take into account. [13:11.000 --> 13:15.000] It must be grammatically and syntactically clear to a speaker of the language of the license. [13:15.000 --> 13:18.000] Every possible variation must meet the OSD. [13:18.000 --> 13:23.000] I've had, we had a recent one where it was sort of like, you know, two iterations were met the OSD, [13:23.000 --> 13:27.000] but not four other iterations or four other, you know, sort of variables. [13:27.000 --> 13:32.000] Next bullet, it must be possible to comply with the license on submission. [13:32.000 --> 13:43.000] And the example, the counter example to this was the SSPL where I think Bradley pointed out that even MongoDB could not comply with the license itself. [13:43.000 --> 13:47.000] It was the copyright owner and therefore didn't have to comply with the license. [13:47.000 --> 13:54.000] But it was so, you know, but it was written in such a way that there was no one on earth could comply with the license. [13:54.000 --> 14:00.000] And then the license must fill a gap that currently existing licenses do not fill. [14:00.000 --> 14:02.000] So that's it. [14:02.000 --> 14:08.000] That's the, in a nutshell, again, you can go to the blog post and read sort of more detail about it. [14:08.000 --> 14:13.000] Put your comments on the wiki and I'm open for questions. [14:13.000 --> 14:16.000] Okay, so, all right there. [14:16.000 --> 14:17.000] James here. [14:17.000 --> 14:20.000] I see James hands shut up. [14:20.000 --> 14:22.000] Interesting topic I guess. [14:22.000 --> 14:25.000] Yeah. [14:25.000 --> 14:33.000] Hi, how often do you see projects submitting license or people submitting licenses that projects are already using? [14:33.000 --> 14:37.000] That seems like the cart before the horse. [14:37.000 --> 14:40.000] How often do we see licenses being submitted? [14:40.000 --> 14:43.000] Oh, I mean, I think the, there was pretty often. [14:43.000 --> 14:52.000] So there, I frankly think that the, so the OSI's practice has been in the OSI's practice is we don't review a license unless someone submits it. [14:52.000 --> 14:58.000] So there is a huge body of legacy licenses that nobody has bothered to submit to the OSI. [14:58.000 --> 15:04.000] So, you know, we have a little over 100 licenses have approved a little over 100 licenses. [15:04.000 --> 15:09.000] If you look at something like the Fedora project, I think they're in 400 licenses or something like that. [15:09.000 --> 15:16.000] So, so yeah, a lot of license, a lot of licenses you might expect are not there and submit away. [15:16.000 --> 15:19.000] Happy to, happy to have those included. [15:19.000 --> 15:21.000] Over here. [15:21.000 --> 15:22.000] Yeah. [15:22.000 --> 15:24.000] Hey, thank you for your talk. [15:24.000 --> 15:38.000] I was wondering if the working group or a related body has a part of a mandate to discourage license proliferation in general, or is it purely just about how to take the incoming licenses? [15:38.000 --> 15:43.000] So I will respond to that sort of from my personal viewpoint. [15:43.000 --> 15:46.000] I'm trying to be clear that this is not the OSI's view. [15:46.000 --> 15:53.000] I will say that on the blog post, we will say that license, license proliferation, and I have the hardest time with that word. [15:53.000 --> 15:59.000] So if I may use a different word, because I can't say it, I think I'm not terribly concerned about it. [15:59.000 --> 16:06.000] I think it was very important that the OSI did put the kibosh on that many years ago. [16:06.000 --> 16:13.000] But I do believe that people are centering around licenses and that's why we're interested in sort of these preferred licenses. [16:13.000 --> 16:19.000] But I don't, we don't, you know, when open source first started there, everybody wanted to have their own license. [16:19.000 --> 16:31.000] But now I really think that people are cohesion around, around licenses and, and it's so that we're not seeing proliferation as a problem. [16:31.000 --> 16:38.000] But for again, they sort of, you know, the company that wants to have their own license so that they can say that they're open source. [16:38.000 --> 16:41.000] So it's not, it's not the proliferation, it's the problem. [16:41.000 --> 16:49.000] It's the how they are, you know, why are they adopting these licenses and we want to make sure that they're being adopted for the, for the right reasons. [16:49.000 --> 16:50.000] Thank you. [16:50.000 --> 16:53.000] So two part question. [16:53.000 --> 17:00.000] Number one, you said reusable by any licensor or reusable by any of a class of licensor? [17:00.000 --> 17:08.000] Any of a class, yes, understanding their special purpose licenses that, but, but yes, and looking for reusability as, as the key. [17:08.000 --> 17:15.000] No, it doesn't have to be all purpose for all things reusable by, by the appropriate audience for that. [17:15.000 --> 17:23.000] But, but not, but not just that only the, only the person proposing the license or drafting the license is the only one who will conceivably use it. [17:23.000 --> 17:30.000] And the second, structurally favored, is the OSI going to take any position on CLAs and the use of, uses there up? [17:30.000 --> 17:33.000] I, I don't recall what our position has been. [17:33.000 --> 17:34.000] There are others in the room. [17:34.000 --> 17:36.000] I'm looking at others in the room who might know the answer to that. [17:36.000 --> 17:42.000] No, that's not, that's not on, we have never, we have never approved CLAs or opined on CLAs. [17:42.000 --> 17:51.000] And I'm not, I have not heard of anybody who thinks at the moment that that is something the OSI should be, will be doing. [17:51.000 --> 18:00.000] Can you take the slide back to the one that showed the comment about machine readable tags? [18:00.000 --> 18:02.000] Let's see. [18:02.000 --> 18:03.000] This one? [18:03.000 --> 18:04.000] Yes. [18:04.000 --> 18:05.000] Okay. [18:05.000 --> 18:12.000] I'll just comment that I agree that preferred sounds like it means preferred by the OSI. [18:12.000 --> 18:13.000] Right. [18:13.000 --> 18:19.000] So the OSI is recommending that people should use that as opposed to popular, which means that other people are using it. [18:19.000 --> 18:20.000] Yeah. [18:20.000 --> 18:21.000] I don't think that's going to change that. [18:21.000 --> 18:23.000] Put it on the wiki, please. [18:23.000 --> 18:25.000] Going back to machine readable tags. [18:25.000 --> 18:27.000] That's a notoriously hard problem. [18:27.000 --> 18:28.000] Yeah. [18:28.000 --> 18:33.000] You might need a controlled vocabulary for tagging. [18:33.000 --> 18:34.000] Yes. [18:34.000 --> 18:37.000] And yes, it will be a controlled vocabulary for tagging. [18:37.000 --> 18:49.000] And you might need to make it very clear that the fact that you might need to distinguish between something, a license that has not been tagged because, with a particular tag, because no one's got around to it yet. [18:49.000 --> 18:55.000] Versus a license that has not been tagged because it negates the validity. [18:55.000 --> 18:58.000] So we need a tag for tagged or not tagged. [18:58.000 --> 18:59.000] I know. [18:59.000 --> 19:05.000] Or completely versus not yet fully tagged. [19:05.000 --> 19:06.000] Yeah. [19:06.000 --> 19:07.000] We only have a couple of minutes. [19:07.000 --> 19:10.000] I want to make sure James, who's hands shot up first, gets to ask his question. [19:10.000 --> 19:11.000] Okay. [19:11.000 --> 19:12.000] Yeah, I know. [19:12.000 --> 19:13.000] But I just, yeah. [19:13.000 --> 19:14.000] Okay. [19:14.000 --> 19:19.000] So quick question as you said, changes to the criteria. [19:19.000 --> 19:24.000] They, I'm wondering if they're, they look to me the way you presented them as additions. [19:24.000 --> 19:27.000] Is there things that you're subtracting from the existing criteria? [19:27.000 --> 19:30.000] Oh, that's, that's a really, I will, next time I present, I will add that slide. [19:30.000 --> 19:34.000] No, it's, it's, it's, it's in addition to must meet the OSD. [19:34.000 --> 19:35.000] Okay. [19:35.000 --> 19:38.000] So, but what are the existing criteria? [19:38.000 --> 19:39.000] It's on the website. [19:39.000 --> 19:42.000] There's, yeah, there's an existing process on the OSI website right now. [19:42.000 --> 19:43.000] Yeah. [19:43.000 --> 19:44.000] Yeah. [19:44.000 --> 19:45.000] Thank you. [19:45.000 --> 19:46.000] Thank you for, thank you. [19:46.000 --> 19:47.000] That's why you do this, right? [19:47.000 --> 19:48.000] Okay. [19:48.000 --> 19:53.000] So the question I was going to ask is a variant about the no privileged entity one, because [19:53.000 --> 19:59.000] one of the ways of avoiding CLA's is to have a license that says, and this entity is, is [19:59.000 --> 20:02.000] empowered to change the terms of the license. [20:02.000 --> 20:06.000] Often done because for a new license, you don't quite know how well it will work out. [20:06.000 --> 20:10.000] And you want an escape route if you want to go to an older license. [20:10.000 --> 20:18.000] If you keep that term and sort of, I'd have to swallow it if I were putting it close to [20:18.000 --> 20:19.000] my mouth. [20:19.000 --> 20:23.500] So the question is, would there be certain privileged terms in the license that you would [20:23.500 --> 20:29.000] look favorably on if they're designed to perform a community function like being steward of whether [20:29.000 --> 20:32.000] the license should change? [20:32.000 --> 20:33.000] Because not doing that. [20:33.000 --> 20:34.000] Yeah. [20:34.000 --> 20:35.000] I'm not. [20:35.000 --> 20:36.000] Yeah. [20:36.000 --> 20:41.000] So the question, as I understand it is, are there terms that, that the OSI will look more [20:41.000 --> 20:47.000] favorably on as sort of, you mean as getting into the preferred category or just more favorably [20:47.000 --> 20:49.000] in the license review process? [20:49.000 --> 20:53.000] Basically allow an entity to change the license if something went wrong. [20:53.000 --> 20:55.000] That's what people usually use CLA store. [20:55.000 --> 21:01.000] And people have been gravitated through the licenses that made the entity instead, which [21:01.000 --> 21:03.000] would run a file of your preferred entity. [21:03.000 --> 21:09.000] And to verify that sort of reusable and without change is, I would, I think that a name change [21:09.000 --> 21:10.000] would be fine. [21:10.000 --> 21:14.000] So for example, if, you know, if we said the license steward is who may come out with later [21:14.000 --> 21:18.000] versions and making someone else a license steward, I think that that's something like [21:18.000 --> 21:19.000] that. [21:19.000 --> 21:25.000] Just the name, just a hard coded name in there would be, I think that would not be objectionable. [21:25.000 --> 21:32.000] It was just, you know, sort of in something broader than that. [21:32.000 --> 21:33.000] Let's see. [21:33.000 --> 21:35.000] You've got two minutes. [21:35.000 --> 21:36.000] Okay. [21:36.000 --> 21:39.000] So you said the ambiguity must not have a material effect. [21:39.000 --> 21:41.000] I'm not real clear on what that means. [21:41.000 --> 21:43.000] I suspect there's, there's more reasoning behind that. [21:43.000 --> 21:45.000] Can you give an example or explain? [21:45.000 --> 21:50.000] Yeah, I don't know if I can give an example, but materiality is a, is a, is a term that [21:50.000 --> 21:52.000] all lawyers feel pretty comfortable with. [21:52.000 --> 21:59.000] And the reason that we said without material effect is every license is imperfect. [21:59.000 --> 22:01.000] So every license will have ambiguity. [22:01.000 --> 22:06.000] And very often you will not know what that is until down the road when someone discovers [22:06.000 --> 22:07.000] that ambiguity. [22:07.000 --> 22:14.000] So material would be, I would say material, material, material change would be, it like [22:14.000 --> 22:16.000] changes the effect of the license. [22:16.000 --> 22:20.000] It's some interpretation that changes, that changes the meaning of the license so that [22:20.000 --> 22:25.000] there are two different ways that the license could be read because of this ambiguity. [22:25.000 --> 22:27.000] And that actually happens quite often. [22:27.000 --> 22:31.000] I would say every license has some kind of ambiguity. [22:31.000 --> 22:37.000] The question is whether it's so significant that it's going to create interpretation problems. [22:37.000 --> 22:39.000] And time's up. [22:39.000 --> 22:40.000] All right. [22:40.000 --> 22:42.000] Thank you very much.