Okay. I'd like to invite everyone to take a seat for our last session.
And this will be the REL panel continued probably.
Well, I think that we'll start off with a different title and we'll see how it goes.
So the purpose of this session is for us, your Deverm organizers,
to summarize a number of the hot issues of the day and maybe go a little bit deeper on them.
We've got a little while.
I think that what I'd like to do is ask each member of the organizing committee to say a few words about their thoughts or
what things are top of mind for them.
And then I think we'll open it up for questions.
But let's start with you, Karen.
With me, I've spoken a lot today, so I'll leave more to other panel members, but we're looking for things from the day or just general hot topics.
I mean, I think within the US there's quite a lot of legislative proposals over right to repair, which I think are quite interesting.
I know there was a really interesting inter ruling that came out in this case called Vizio in the US.
That was really fascinating.
So I'll leave with those two.
Let's go over to Alexander.
I'll come back to me.
He wants last.
I'm going to take off.
Okay, that was the longest way to hand over the microphone.
But anyhow, I think for me, particularly the public money, public code card talk was interesting.
So I mean, tomorrow we will also, Lina will talk about interoperability.
And I think that's pretty interesting what's happening in Europe nowadays.
So many countries are deciding to procure more open source software, free software.
And it's interesting how they do this and what ways they're looking for.
And still most of the approaches come as a lot of loopholes.
Also, as we've seen today with the security, a reason maybe.
But still, I think we made a huge step, also this public money, public code campaign,
but also like, yeah, in the last five to two, three years,
I think there was a lot of improvement and it was interesting to see it here in Fosbytsel and I think so.
Okay, I am, I am my care.
So, so I think the first thing for me is that y'all
you're going to miss me to not want to talk about Rell anymore, which was pretty hard to do.
And so congratulations on that, because I really don't want to talk about it anymore.
And I've been talking about it for like 20 years and never stopped.
But you filled it up for me.
I'm done.
But you're probably not.
The big question, ask it.
But the thing really stood out to me was that last talk.
You know, I don't know if y'all saw my talk on the main track.
I had this whole thing about things being politically unviable and certain types of free software,
activism is just politically unviable.
I was literally writing those slides thinking, well, a law that you would have that would require
things to be open source for the government would be one of those politically unviable things.
And the Swiss did it.
It's, it's, it's very exciting to me and I just, I was really glad to see that talk.
So for me, there's one thought that circled a bit around during the whole day.
And this is, I mean, there are a lot of actions we see when some companies or organizations
think that they could make more money when all the people who use the software would
have to give money to them.
That's something we also see in the, in the public sector.
That this is actually an issue that there are meanwhile actors out there who take free
software components and bid on them.
And then they, they get money from the public administrations to deploy free software.
But everything they do will not get up-screen again.
And all the developers that actually do the work for the free software components, for
them it's not sustainable anymore.
And then what we see in those cases are those re-licensing, yeah, trying to solve this by
re-licensing or, yeah, how to in general like what, what they can do about that.
And I think, I mean, for, for me, one of the question is also like how do we as a community
establish norms that those who actually ensure that we get better tools under free software
licenses out there that they can do so and that we enable them to do so.
And that in the end, yeah, also then the public administration gets free software that, that
is successful for them and not, okay, we offer you this, this software components here,
deploy it somehow when there's a problem.
Oh, we don't know how to fix it.
But we also have some proprietary software in our portfolio which we can sell you and
actually we would prefer to sell you this.
So last year when I had a chance to speak on this panel, chat GPT had just been released
and so I was very curious about the role of AI and free software.
And I still am, but I feel like this is a complex issue both from the sort of the intake
side, you know, the GitHub co-pilot standpoint of the data that's mined to train the models
and then also, you know, what are the downstream rights of AI or even, you know, who is the
author of AI, you know, created code.
I think these are really important questions for our community but, you know, today I'm
struck with maybe more pressing thoughts.
I also was very impressed by the talk from the Swiss and it reminds me and I know that
many of you are from Germany.
Am I not remembering correctly several years ago the city of Munich required open source
software?
This is a project which over the city of Munich community has a Linux based operating system.
So yeah, with Linux that was something which was one of those projects which was very visual
out there and always when people talked about free software and public administrations it
was about Munich and actually there were then political reasons and other reasons why they
switched which had nothing to do with the licensing of the software and the results also they
had in several of the studies about this steps was also that this has nothing to do, the
failure which was there had nothing to do with the software but with management structures,
with a lot of decentralization there which was not coordinated at all and yeah, there
are, I think there are some recordings of me talking about Linux from other conferences
which you, yeah, can then follow in longer detail about that.
May I just add another sentence to Munich because it's super interesting and we are
following this a lot and after the Linux case they still continue to do open source and
they are one of the administrations still in Germany that are very like progressive
in terms of how they procure open source and free software and just lately for example
they joined the free software project as a sponsor so they even donate to projects so
they found a way to not only procure software but also support free software projects with
donations and that's something you should also like not forget about.
Well I also think that this clause about not having market disruption by open source software
is a completely bogus argument.
I think that we can easily defeat that.
I think that the European message of public money, public code is great and I think that
there's a lot of reasons that we can defeat that argument.
So I think that there's a lot of promise for public tenders for open source software.
But I want to end my thoughts on how important I think this Neil for Jay decision is.
I was tracking it but only superficially and now I'm actually very worried about it.
It seems like the reason that I'm worried about it is that well we could say there are
all other things that copyright can't reach.
Copyright is still a tool that we use a lot and in particular the AGPL I think is a very
important tool in the world of cloud based software.
So for me the Neil for Jay decision feels like if we were to allow this to go to pass
that proprietary relicensing would defeat the open source side of the license and that
is really for me a very serious concern and I'm shocked that the court would feel comfortable
excluding a part of the license that they didn't like and say that oh you can just ignore
that.
That seems ridiculous to me.
So I'm very concerned about Neil for Jay and I'm hoping that it doesn't set a negative
precedent for all open source software.
I would say it could be a lot narrower than it seems like that decision.
If when you read it it's kind of a mess.
So trying to figure out what it stands for we'll have to see what happens on appeal but
I think it's premature to feel like the sky is falling but it is it is just stressing
that it's in this situation for sure.
Any other thoughts before we open up for questions?
Yeah let's see questions.
Hello.
Hi everyone thanks again for the wonderful DeVroom.
My thought for the year is that we're seeing very much more than previous a complete differentiation
on the way that open sourcing handle whether it's copy left or non copy left and I want
to give an example.
I was in a presentation a couple of days ago that they were talking about AI and yeah we
will develop this wonderful system that will create code for you and we train it with lots
of code that we found and we make sure that we remove all the copy left ones.
So yeah it's a complete separation of how we treat copy left with non copy left while
obligations for open source license are in both.
Yeah I mean I think and one of the biggest problems with code generation systems is the
lack of attribution and nearly every FOSS license copy left non copy left has attribution
and I think you're correct that since there hasn't been any kind of aggressive raising
of failure to attribute with regard to non copy left stuff I think companies who are doing
this kind of code generation don't think they have to meet those requirements and those
requirements are important and should be met.
They're there in the license.
Just to put in a simple find point that you missed is that using things like a generative
model to generate your code your code is not copy rightable.
You cannot copyright that code.
The IP you still have the IP issues which may be involved which may be litigated but
the code itself is not copyrighted.
I'm not aware what decision held that and in what countries but I have heard.
No it's unsettled.
Sorry it's unsettled.
No no but you are saying that there's no copyright.
Just one big thing with the stream we cannot have a discussion with the panel because we
just have two microphones so we need to keep it to a question and then we can try to answer
else we need to put that after the session.
It will not work with the live stream and the recording.
Yeah definitely thank you.
We were saying that the folks that are the folks who are responsible for these generative
models of course want the output to not be copyrightable.
The material they say can be used in whatever manner that the users decide but that doesn't
mean that when copyrighted code is output from the generative model that the copyright
doesn't apply and there are eight lawsuits in the United States none of which have been
settled all on this topic.
It will be really interesting.
I don't know if everybody wants another legal policy dev room next year but if we have one
next year we will probably be discussing the results of some of those cases although they
will take a long time and there will be appeals.
It's very interesting the copyright office in the United States is very very torn about
this issue they just issued a call for comments we had software freedom conservancy gave comments.
The FCC reached out to us about this issue we didn't even reach out to that agency they
reached out to us and then they submitted their discussion with us and others to the
copyright office so we submitted our own comments and then the FCC submitted.
So this is all a discussion that's happening right now and you can see from the questions
that the copyright office is asking that they are really not sure so it will be interesting
to see.
This is actually more of it's a meta comment about the organization of the dev room but
we were actually a little bit surprised.
I'll be frank I was pleasantly surprised that we did not get a lot of submissions this
year we expected to have just like a giant stack of AI and this AI and that AI right
because it's the fad topic right.
We had a few but not as many and many of them were very speculative but if somebody wants
to do a very for example if somebody wanted to do a survey of all the cases that are pending
about copyright ability and artificial intelligence and FOS that would be a great submission for
next year and we would welcome it.
Building on that comment about copyright ability of generated code speaking only for the jurisdiction
of England and Wales and probably British law in general UK law in general it is certainly
the case that computer generated code does attract copyright that's specifically mentioned
in the UK Copyright Act.
What we don't know is exactly who the copyright holder is going to be it whoever made the
arrangements and there is some fairly problematic well there's one very problematic case that
suggests that it's the programmer whoever the programmer might be but anyway.
Okay so your assignment for next year's dev room is for every country submit the cases
that are pending on this question.
First of it we could do like a five minute briefing right from each country.
Yeah first of all sorry for my horrible English.
Of course I don't want to talk about redhead but what is actually the problem.
The problem in my perspective is such companies like Oracle for example maybe and what our
solutions was one of the questions maybe we someone can explain what is the difference
between 501 C3 and 501 C6 and the Linux foundation.
Yeah it's not for public good and maybe that's a problem and maybe Karen you can tell us
why people like you are not on the board and there is no community seat anymore and maybe
something like this is a fucking problem in our community maybe people like Brian Landuk
is talking about that for five years and more and nothing is happening and maybe we can
talk about that and maybe our community can do something to build up a foundation or something
like that maybe or there is one we can join and say yeah you are doing Linux and stuff
like that for money gonna go fuck yourself and maybe stuff like that can bring a better
and more healthy open source community by the way I'm well socialized with BSD but I
love the GPL and GPL maybe is a success model that is getting ripped.
And people say that I'm controversial when I make comments about the Linux foundation.
So I think it's a good question I don't think it's as bad as you're putting it forward
because what I've heard not just in the last year but more over the last two years from
lots of companies that are members of trade associations like the Linux foundation which
are the 501 C6 that's a US designation.
I think 6 is twice as good as 3.
I think companies are starting to realize that the C6 model of the open source foundation
is really just a coin operated model to do things and if what you want is to throw a bunch
of company money together and get a particular project done that benefits just those companies
it's a reasonably good model to get that done but Microsoft is an example of a company
that would want to get that done and if they want to collaborate with Intel and everybody else
they throw their money in and they make a project and I don't really have much complaint about
that activity of the Linux foundation.
My traditional complaints about the 501 C6 models is when they attempt to say their job
is to serve the public good.
Their job is not to serve the public good their job is to serve the common business interest
of their members which is usually quite different from the public good.
In the last two years I think the entire community is getting a much better understanding
of these two different very kind of like US tax geek forms of regulation of organization
and understanding that a 501 C3 is a charitable organization in the US that has to act to
the benefit of the entire public and a C6 is a trade association.
We also have my colleagues from EPSF Europe here are just doing amazing work in Europe
by using an EV structure and I don't know if you want to comment on how that operates
and how you're able to do good things in Europe with that kind of governance structure.
You mean with the association?
Yeah, with EPSF Europe.
Is EPSF Europe an EV?
Yeah.
I mean in Europe we rather have the problem that it's very difficult to create associations
which are then charitable in all the countries so if you want to operate all over Europe
that's very tricky.
Some things might change there at the time when EPSF was founded in 2001 that option
didn't exist so it was founded in Germany as an EV because that's quite easy.
You just need a few people and then it's done and then you can become charitable afterwards
but as an association you are then struggling with getting you have tax benefits for donors
in Germany also in some other countries who didn't accept well if Germany said that you
are a charitable organization then we also believe so but for a lot of other countries
you don't and then it's less attract or you don't get the benefits from tax deductibility
like you get in some other countries but related to that look out at those links over there
so if you want to support organizations that are working on the issues mentioned here during
the day then those are good starting points and of the advertisement and over to the next
question.
Well it might not be surprising that it's more comments than questions coming from
me again and there's two things I have and one maybe from the first talk of the whole
redhead thing people might have gotten the impression that I'm not like anti that I'm
anti capitalist or something like I love money and I love making money and I think people
in free software should be able to make money right.
I think the issue that we see is freedom one or freedom zero says the freedom to use the
software for any purpose without restriction and if we build systems where a for profit
company has a commercial interest to restrict people to use their software they are fundamentally
at odds with that freedom so we need to start building communities and systems where the
code itself and the software itself is owned by a non-profit organization and then there
can be an ecosystem of companies around that that sell support that sell distributions
it's probably not going to be as easy as I'm trying to paint it here right but we need
to avoid situations where a company owns large parts of the software and has a commercial
interest to stop you from using their software without paying them money right that is an
issue.
Yeah to add some controversy there so I mean we at the moment we have some discussions
about public procurement and how to create successful solutions for free software there
and I mean one of the topics there is this issue about there's a procurement and you
want to ensure that those who actually have an interest in further developing the solutions
that they get the tenders they that they have the knowledge to actually fulfill the tender
there and not just the cheapest offer so that is one of the issues and there I would
also be very interested to hear from you afterwards what are good criteria you could add in tenders
that ensure that it's actually the people who know the code best or who contribute a
lot to the programs that you can rather ensure that they are more successful when they have
free software experience than those who don't have any free software experience and whose
contribution might also not end up benefiting others again.
The other question that popped up there is how when you want to break the monopolies
in a lot of those areas in public procurement in public sector software how do you have
to create what conditions do you have to create that companies there can actually that they
would also invest money to further improve the software by yeah by by taking some of
the capital they have and investing that already before by anticipating what public
administrations might want to have and that is a problem which is still with free software
more complicated to accomplish that you make this upfront investments in comparison to
proprietary software but I still think I mean there there are models out there where you don't
need to have the software with organizations there can be models where software is with
individuals with companies with others and I think I mean the great advantage of free software
is that you can have this mixture you can have a company developing the software but on the other
hand you can have public administration paying some employees to also be developers of that
software and you can have other companies also providing services for the same software so I
think that's that's one of the big advantages we have there and we don't have to decide like all
the software has to be owned by foundations or by nonprofits or but you have this this this mixture
and that's the thing that that is important that we can see what models work better yeah I just
want to tease out a really interesting point there which is that historically we really did
talk about like gaining corporate adoption that was like one of the big and individual hobbyist
and individual contributions right like those are what we're focused on and we were a lot less
focused on collective action and so we had some examples of nonprofits that took on big big
software problems the problem that we have is getting is one having the momentum to get started
to solve the really big problems that are hard to solve in a like in a distributed way and second
the the problem is that the challenge of good governance for those nonprofits if you if those
are the ones centralizing that that initiative is extremely difficult because transparency is
essential but not enough you know conflict management is not enough and so I really I
truly believe that we're in a situation where we need to try a much bigger nonprofit and
governmental lead software solutions for really important huge infrastructure solutions but to
do so we have to try radically different governance structures than we've ever done before I
want to add on that I think I think the theme we've heard from you've been saying all day and
Matias and Karen were both speaking to is that the problem of monoculture and software is obvious
in proprietary software but it can also occur in free software and it is extremely difficult to
design a licensing structure or a governance model that is guaranteed to prevent a monoculture
from developing around the projects and I think it's an open problem in fast policy at this
moment so the reason why we were all struggling so much we're like but that's so why are they
doing that and they're all in control and they're doing the wrong thing and it's upsetting me
because we don't it's not like we have a ready-made solution we say oh if you do it this way if you
change your governance model this way we'll be guaranteed something bad like this won't happen
we just don't know how to design that yet and something I think we're still learning as a
community my question was a bit around that if we look at the Linux kernel like it was done by
developers and they retain like even if there is the Linux foundation and so on they still retain
some control like the maintainers can refuse non-free user space do we have model where the
project is controlled by people like for instance in GNU and company can still participate but
the agenda is really set by the maintainer do we have like different models and good models for that
yeah so it's interesting to use Linux kernel as an example is that we've we've actually seen the
Linux kernel drift into more of a oligarchy from what was a truly when I got when I downloaded my
first copy of Linux in 1992 and wrote some patches for it you know it was truly a hobbyist project
and was kind of all the best things about free software and the commercial interest in it led to
this oligopoly you know there's like seven companies or something that are 90% of the
contributions every every year into Linux upstream and holding all those copyrights so so a project
totally drift and it's still under the GPL we still have the ability to get our third party
beneficiary rights under the GPL and Linux so there's lots of good there but the governance model
Linux is it has drifted to a more corporate governance model just basically organically and
it's weird to think that a project could organically move from a hobbyist project to a to a more
corporate project but it kind of did it yeah so I feel it's somewhat reminded to like the the essay
the cassette will enter the bazaar by by this discussion I don't know whether it's general known
but it's it's it's like quite some years old and I generally a good read but I wanted to actually
ask a different question or like bring up a different point which we talked a lot about
legal issues here and we basically did not talk about ethical issues at all no one talked about
freedom and this is something that everyone talked about open source software and like this first
talk free was used several times but only in regards to price no one ever thought about like the
freedom of the users and I make made me a little bit sad because I mean there's like an FSF logo
up there and I think yeah we should talk about ethics we should talk about the freedom that the
users deserve that the users need that the developers need and we should talk more about
freedom and about ethics well that reminds me of yes please applaud flat that that makes me think
of one takeaway that I got from Bradley's talk today which in the main room about third-party
beneficiaries and I think that I think that many of us you know read the open source licenses with
that in mind it's sort of obvious you know that that the user is getting a huge benefit from these
licenses and you know one at one you know if you if you take that thought with Linux you think well
great as a user Linux is open source software but what's a little bit counterintuitive and this
ties into the earlier discussion about trade associations is that the copyright holder for
Linux kernel you know the Linux foundation specifically has the interests of the trade
association in mind and not the third-party beneficiaries so I just wanted to call that out
yeah I just I also want to add that in the first the rail panel you know when we were talking about
the spirit of the GPL we were really talking about freedom we didn't put a fine point on it but
that was at the heart of that conversation you know one of the things about this dev room is that
we wanted to make sure that there is a place to have advanced conversations so not introductory
conversations about the important legal topics that are happening now and I think your feedback is
really astute because I think that sometimes we're so focused on more advanced issues that we don't
take a beat to take a step back and talk about the the impact in a fundamental way so I like that we
should do that next year I've you probably noticed that in recent years I've changed my rhetoric to
talk more about rights and inalienable rights because I think I think that the the way people
interpret the word freedom and free has this ability to polarize people and inalienable rights
are a thing that every light the UN has a UN declaration of human rights there's this idea
that there are certain rights human beings deserve just by being humans I personally think that the
right to copy modify redistribute improve software is one of those rights and I actually think it's
better rhetoric I kind of think we should have had a software rights movement from the start not a
free software but I think I think it's better better kind of categorize that way myself but but
but but terminology matters less than ideas I think and I think the ideas are are aligned in the
ways that you're concerned about I think it's one of the exciting missy so you haven't talked yet
did you did you want to did you want to answer this no there is another question here but okay then
but I think it was a good reminder that we are as we have this deaf room as an advanced topic
deaf room we sometimes forget to remind ourselves why we are discussing all those topics and that
that's exactly what was mentioned there if we call it software freedom or user rights or freedom I
think we should be on the same page there thank you sorry I'm about to change topic but I've been
dev room hopping all day so forgive me if this has been it's Boston and but forgive me if this has
been covered but I was just really interested with the expertise we've got around the panel here
what people's opinions are on the current status of the CRA I was in the presentation earlier on
in Janssen and I'm just wondering if I'm the only person who's terrified and if I'm wrong to be
terrified yeah I mean we at first time I think we discussed it last year and also this year you
mentioned the main hall discussion but there will be also a deaf room tomorrow and we have a
longer discussion starting at 9 in the morning maybe basically we'll talk for two hours on the
CIA I'd say it's a it's a major improvement from the initial draft what we got from the commission
and that was improved a lot by the European Parliament by the Council by the Member States so
that's that's definitely a step forward I struggle a bit to be honest with the wording in the
product liability directive because the commercial activity is not that precisely defined as in
the CIA so I'd say there we made a still an improvement and also compared to the initial
Commission proposal but it's not that super awesome good and this is pretty much also true for the
which is kind of like combined with the ideas of these kind of exemptions and also in all of these
files they will be like covered with a lot of like guidelines and delegated acts and we will just
like learn in a few years how it will pretty much look like and this is I think something we need
to do for the next years is like pretty much monitor the market monitor what will what will
happen there and this is also like pretty much a call so if you if you see companies struggling
because of these files then it would be very important to let us know about this nonprofits are
out for all of them and individual developers are out for for in all of these files so there
shouldn't be issue but there might be an issue if you transform your nonprofit singing into a
start up at one point but this is also I mean on the other hand covered also with the like
what's what's what's what's defined so what does the what's the sanction and this is and there's
also I mean there are different rules for small and microenter prices than for like big tech and
that's that's something where we can say in the whole debate we managed it that we that we were
able to to make our points to what's decision makers and they understood a lot about free
software during the debate in the last year I think and that's something we can build on for
future debates and this will help us I think a lot for next files that they might might come up as
a better proposal there's a better initial proposal let's say and to quickly add there for
organizations like the FSF to follow up on so such issues for decades as well as for other
organizations working in free software like as a CEO or FSF who really are working for for
user rights it's important that we have the resources to actually do that so have a look at
this slide and I was gonna say on a logistical point one of the reasons why you didn't hear a lot
of that content here is that we know that there's the room tomorrow but you know it's certainly
within the scope of the dev room if there are specific topics that you'd like to see in the
future if we put out a call for a dev room and you don't want to present as a speaker but you
really wish that a topic would be covered just send us a note through the system and you can
say I I really think this is an important topic and sometimes we get like sometimes we get several
proposals about a topic but none of the talks are exactly right and that's sometimes how our
panels get formed and we could do the same thing if there's a topic that you all want so don't
feel like like those of you who come and especially some of you who are here you know a couple years
in a row you've got a good idea of what you think should happen here and you can be a part of that
organization I just want to add how how appreciative I work of Alex's work I am and FSEF Europe in
general on the CRA stuff we we saw in the US all sorts of US companies trying to lobby about the
CRA stuff and then of course being in the US organization we get asked like what you know
why is this US company like involved in this and I mean I'm just a stupid American what do I know
about what's going on in in Europe with with the EU regulation and being able to rely on Alex's
expertise and FSEF Europe's was a huge benefit it was it was a really as we've been going through
this process it's a it's a great collaboration to be able to work with the FSEF Europe folks on this
to have a place to go like we have we can we have no idea but we can point you to the people who
know everything about this and are doing the right thing with it. Oh okay I have no idea maybe you do.
Yeah I will take advantage of these two last comments because one thing that I expected that
will be discussed here and I've not been hearing for it about it all day is the Digital Services Act
like we talked for many years with the problem with the platform side stepping all the issues
about you know copyright and free software because they just you know they run the free software on
servers but what they do is collect the data and now we have this very big European regulation and
from what I've seen from the schedule it's a topic that is not being covered. I wanted to to make a
proposal for a talk I didn't manage to to get to it but yeah as a suggestion and I don't know I wanted
also to hear your opinion am I wrong in thinking that this is relevant for a room like this or not.
I've been answering so many things. Yes I thought yes I can with a very like high probability
think about that there will be submissions for next year's call for paper which are covering this area.
So we take this feedback. Another one.
Sorry just a really quick follow up in the in this first talk like literally someone on the
panel said that it is OK to take away the rights to distribute the software from the users and as
long as someone does this on the panel I think yeah OK we need to have basic discussions. Yeah we
need to have a lot of basic discussions because like apparently we can't even agree on like four
essential freedoms that the users of software should always have and be at their users of Reddit.
And you I'm sure you saw my comment during that panel and the reason I made that comment was
because I was like it was Liam who said that it lacked the nuance that needed to be there right
and Liam's Leons journalist for the register we remind everybody and therefore the register is
known for its controversy provocative headlines and I really I really think it is important on
the rel issue and every other issue and the one of the reasons we run this dev room is that there
was a tremendous amount of nuance to these issues right and and I think that too often people jump
to conclusions about them as you saw Liam do for whatever reason Liam's case I think it's
to get people reacting which is fine but but I think it's important we think about the nuance
that's there. So I think we are we're almost done with the time what about we just have a short
round what each one of us some last words famous last words of today. Okay the first last words
yeah thank you for the feedback I'd say this is definitely something we will work on for next
edition I'm really looking forward to next year maybe we get the big room again and maybe a bit
longer so that we can address all the topics you want to see and it was a great fun again thank
you so much. Okay then I just have two two messages one is please take away with you that
it's important that we are paying more for people or organizations or companies that are ensuring
that the software you get is will give you the four rights to use StudyShare and improve them
then you give for those companies that restrict those and the second one is please add in your
calendar the 14th of February and say thank you to some other people in our community so that they
are motivated and see that their work for software freedom is appreciated. When you go back home open
every box of every electronic device you've had and see if there's an offer for source code and
test it if they give you anything go to the use the source site on Ask of Concurrency and work with
us to test whether it actually complies with the GPL test your offers for source all year please. I
love this idea of asking you for your ideas of what topics we should cover in the dev room. If you
go in the FOSTA mailing list you'll see our call for participation that has our email address I
will just say it to you now which is FOSTA legal dash policy at F-A-I-F dot US which is free as in
freedom dot US and encourage you to send us an email with your thoughts about topics that we should
cover in the future and thank you so much for coming. Crap that address is running on my mail
server I'm a little scared now. And what I was going to say is that if you like this dev room and
you wanted to happen next year we did get a very small block of time this year so mention to the
FOSTA organizers that you like it that you want to see it again and that way they'll know when
they're organizing it but I would say overall it's just been delightful to talk about these important
issues you know obviously we would have liked to have talked about even more issues and have different
formats for those conversations but it's really been lovely thanks to Alex, Matias, Bradley, Tom and
everybody who's here have a great rest of your FOSTA.