everybody Jeremy Allison hi thanks very much for coming to my talk we had a little technical difficulties so the top and bottom of the slides maybe maybe a little prunkated I'm afraid I'll have to work around that so my name is Jeremy Allison I'm the co-creator of the Samba free software project my day job is working for Google open source programs office but I want to make absolutely clear and the best way of doing this is by doing this sorry this sorry I'm this is not a Google talk I'm gonna be saying things here that Google don't agree with this is the view of myself and quite possibly the Samba project so I'm going to be talking about GPO V3 this is not a Google talk so if I if I see any press center or anything later saying Google engineer says a I should be really cross and I'm probably shattered up my my boss and be I'll just deny ever having said it as a Google engineer I'll you know using the the latest theory of fake news I'll just say no I never said that and who are you gonna believe you know me or your own lying eyes so yeah this is this is a Samba related talk not Google related Bradley asked me to give a talk on how GPL is affected deep up moving to GPO V3 has affected Samba I already gave a talk a few years ago on why we did it I'm gonna talk about what the consequences are and what I I think how the GPL is moving to GPO V3 has affected us it started off as a nice fluffy how to use GPO V3 to get companies to work with you kind of comma GPL in commerce talk as you may have seen from the abstract it kind of got darker than that as I started to write it for some reason I got angry and angrier and as you'll see more of the anger came out in the talk possibly than I intended so just going back you know copy left has always been commercial the early funding of the Free Software Foundation was Richard selling those big son and other tapes and shipping them out interestingly enough the the early days of Samba one of the first requests we ever had was from the Australian Defense Establishment who insisted on having an invoice sent by Tridge for Samba to them so that they could use it so he carefully made up an invoice for $0 and sent that in and apparently their accountants were perfectly happy with that so long as they had a piece of paper saying that they had the right to use the software and they had an invoice and that they had paid it and it was I don't know whether they sent him a check back for $0 and the other the other thing was when I first moved to SGI who were doing a Samba based product one of the first things that SGI did at that time was to essentially realize that Red Hat was making a lot of money and started charging for Samba support contracts because as my VP said at the time nobody values what they're getting for free so the idea that copy lefters you know non-commercial obviously Red Hat put that idea to bed a long time ago and in fact you know I get paid to write GPLv3 software so GPLv2 everybody loves GPLv2 right is anyone here old enough to remember working with corporate lawyers who basically accused you of being a communist trying to destroy the software industry because you were using good old GPLv2 the the the yeah thank you the the the license that now people say oh man that thing's great I understand that it fits like an old shoe I'm just so happy about GPLv2 walking shoes it's at the time that people were lawyers corporate lawyers were absolutely and utterly terrified of it and in fact the Linux kernel has seemed to have adopted that well GPLv2 is great we don't need anything else why would you ever change why are you causing trouble we were Samba was one of the earliest adopters of GPLv3 well as you can't see there the software world is much more complicated now than it was in 1991 when GPLv2 was published and in fact let me take you back to the years of 2007 which was when GPLv3 was first getting created so there were three issues I don't know whether people remember this at the time that were emerging that made at least myself and obviously the Free Software Foundation think that GPLv2 was becoming was was not built to address it addressed some of these things but not not fully not in a way that the FSF felt protected the investments in GPL software that were being made so the first one is the Microsoft-Novell agreement anyone remember that I yeah I quit my job at Nivella over that and ended up at Google what a shame so I suppose that wasn't so bad so that and I'll go into that more in the next slide essentially that was an attempt to add additional conditions to violate GPL section 7 to add additional conditions that would contradict the license I first remember when I first saw that agreement I was actually I think it was just after Fosdem and I was in England visiting my family and one of the novel lawyers emailed me this and said yeah maybe you should take a look at this see let me know what you think and I emailed back saying why is this not a section 7 violation of the GPL and the response I got was thank you for your input please delete the previous email so they went ahead with it the second threat more serious is of course software patents and the fear at the time was that essentially writing free software would just collapse there would be lawsuits on individual developers projects would be unable to create things and there were rumblings at the time there was a file system tux 3 I think it was tux 2 or tux 3 that NetApp started claiming was violating the waffle patents you know there was that was publicly abandoned possibly more due to the temperament of the developer than anything else but there were lots of threats coming that that patents were going to end the world as we know it and of course the final one was DRM and the one that bugged me the most actually was DRM and I just I grew up in a world where I was able to get access to the source code of many of the devices that I ran and if I didn't like them I could I could put other software on there and the idea of a world where things were completely locked down you know what it essentially ruined the utility of everything I'd learned because what use is having the source code if you can't do anything with it yeah you can learn from it but if you can't install it or anything it really is not much use and things have only gotten worse since then I'll I'll go into that in a little little while so let's talk about the novel agreement it was very interesting it was a patent indemnification pact and it was structured as a covenant not to sue and essentially what it allowed Microsoft to do was to charge per seat royalties on any Susie Linux that was being shipped and this was this was seen as it was the end of the world it was going to turn GPL software into proprietary software and now there's actually a wonderful quote from one of the VPs at Red Hat basically saying after this agreement in one year's time Susie will have collapsed there will only be Red Hat as the last standing Linux distributor etc which didn't happen but yeah I was nice wishful thinking so so what actually did happen well it didn't really matter because essentially companies violate section 7 all the time and they do add additional conditions I yeah you can't see the last line which says I don't have proof of this so so what happened was they just kept cross licensing patents under NDA to companies Tom Tom you name it the interesting case was the Barnes and Noble one because they actually published I think one of the proposed agreements because they refused to sign it eventually they did sign a cross license at one point it was two billion dollars a year business for Microsoft which is you know I mean it's not a lot for them it but it's not quite pocket change either it from the department I guess and they're still doing that but the big thing that changed between the the specific Microsoft and Nevelle deal is that and I genuinely believe this Microsoft has changed and they now I wouldn't say they're an open source company but they have learned to live with open source and will learn increasingly learn to use it commercially ongoing I I remember having a dinner with a Microsoft VP in Mantivew Tidehouse and telling him why don't you guys put sequel server on Linux you're crazy you should have done this years ago you know why won't you do it and him holding his head in these hands and saying the Windows team won't let me you know they were frightened that it was going to take away that their monopoly power on Windows and now last year sequel server is coming to Windows change has come Microsoft is no longer the threat to free software and it's all about money makes the world go around they finally figured out how to make money on open source free software and the other thing is I've actually heard from engineers because it's always engineers who pass you the real dirt that most companies who want to do cross licensing just do so with no thought whatsoever to how this is violating any of the terms they just do it they do it on an NDA no one ever hears about it you know I have no proof whatsoever I you know even nobody will go on record of saying yes my company signed an NDA agreement that cross-license patents that violated the GPOV 2 or 3 but these things I believe happen all the time if anyone wants to stand up and say yes my company does that yeah great feel free to do so I'd be very happy to talk to you so that moves on to the to the next thing that the GPOV 3 was trying to address which is software patents and that's if you can't see that's actually a little map of East Texas the rocket docket so Scott Peterson I don't think he's here he's getting a lot of good press in these talks so my fear was that I was gonna get personally sued over violating people's patents because I was writing software and you know I thought if people wanted to stop Sam but maybe they're gonna sue me and maybe I'm gonna lose my house and whatever and I remember a wonderful phone call with Scott Peterson cuz he and I were both working at HP at the time he said you don't have to worry you idiot you don't have any money he said you're poor HP has to worry we've got the money so that actually turned out to be absolutely true many people patent trolls have sued it's become a multi-billion dollar industry mainly centered in East Texas which is a very interesting place there's some there's a marvelous American I think it's this American life or Planet Money do a wonderful they did a wonderful podcast on the the company's headquartered in East Texas that are essentially a post office box inside one big building that are the patent trolls and yes all software has suffered but it hasn't specifically targeted free software or open source I mean all software sucks all software violence patents nobody ever looks at patents they are completely purposeless they're originally intent was to teach people how to do things no one ever looks at patents just just a quick poll anyone there's anyone here whose whose company is actually ever said to an engineer yes you should look at patents so that we can discover this interesting new thing we can do anyone yes what I said really they asked you to look at patterns I'm sorry where do you work I'm just very curious in a coding villain and they asked you to look to so to the they've asked my God you guys are not going to be in business long okay sorry yes no they're coming oh university oh universities don't count that crazy they I mean they they they see patents as a profit center that I mean oh sure and they almost certainly want to file so they can sue other people I mean universities is not quite a non-practising entity but but pretty damn close but I'm very surprised you are the only software company I've ever heard of who's done that and good luck to you everyone else everyone else at least in the US is paranoidly warned never ever look at this you will be in severe danger the triple damages etc. gonna kill you if you do this so alright so how did the GPL v3 patent provisions cost us in Samba well so Bradley told me an interesting story I knew the Apple were involved in GPL v3 drafting I knew the objected to the patent clause but I didn't know exactly how apparently what they would do is say we object to these clauses and then when the FSF came back to them said oh okay what's wrong with the wording what would you like us to change how would you like it to be corrected they never replied so they do say yes we object to this well how do you object to it well we object to it it's bad so what they ended up doing was they pulled Samba and in fact they're slowly but surely pulling most GPL software v2 or v3 it doesn't really matter for them they've created a proprietary SMB to server and remove Samba for Mac OS X they're the only vendor to publicly say we can't use Samba because it's GPL v3 in practice we probably lost some other vendors I'll go into that a little bit more later on I can't remember this next slide or not because fedora doesn't have the open office that allows me to see the next slide in advance so it says I'm what you mistreated me as you but I do go into it further so yeah that was that was discouraging we probably lost some code contributions but not that much most of the Apple code contributions were actually fixing Samba to work on macOS so yeah so here's an interesting thing the the confluence of two things Samba moving to GPL v3 and Microsoft losing the EU antitrust case and then being forced to publish their protocols which they did ended up doing wholeheartedly and much more fully than the EU originally demanded the EU demanded a certain set they finally went you know what this is actually good for us and they published everything so the confluence of that created a market for alternative Samba and there were actually two that got created well two or three now this couple more they they keep popping up and and it's interesting to look at what actually happens to them they would they would actually advertise you know yes this is this is all the good bits of Samba but it's not GPL v3 in fact one of them which I found really amusing was they implemented the documented parts of SMB 2 and the that company was actually saying oh well if you want to support all the Windows versions just install Samba as well and when we get when we get calls that we don't understand we'll just pass them through to to the Samba piece which actually kind of defeats the object as far as I can see but anyway so what what happened to these guys it's very interesting one of them got quite popular and was giving me headaches at the time I was like oh my god are we about to be obsolete and they they sold licenses to a number of our of our vendors who said ah you guys are old we're we're going with this new stuff it's great what actually turned out to happen was EMC had bought them and there were so many bugs in it that they weren't critical customer data lost bugs that they weren't getting fixed that eventually EMC just said screw it we're going to buy the company so they bought the company to get access to the source code and fixes and have the engineers work on their fixes and they promptly terminated all the support contracts of every other vendor who was using it so these guys were left completely in the lurch with unsupported software with no bug bug fixes coming out I know the guy who made the decision at EMC and I sent him an email that just just had one line that said thank you for ridding me of this turbulent priest and yeah they many of the the other vendors who were using that have since readopted Samba and have been participating quite actively simply because I think they've been shown what can happen if their if their supplier gets bought out by a hostile vendor and so that that was kind of interesting yes it cost us we I think we've kind of recovered along there so so let's go on to the the thing that really gets disturbed more than anything else so if you're familiar with the work of a wonderful TV writer in the US called Joss Whedon he writes these great TV series he had firefly a buffy the vampire flair etc and he came up with this concept of the big bad and the big bad is you know you you fight these lesser enemies your characters fight these lesser enemies like the Microsoft novella agreement or you know software patterns or whatever along the way but the end the end of the season you have the big bad which is the you know the main enemy that you have to defeat in order for the TV series to continue and I think the GPL V3 and us the big bad is DRM digital rights management or digital restrictions management as the FSF likes to call it if you haven't read any of Verna Vinci science fiction books I really suggest you pick them up there are couple that are really relevant this is a quote from a deepness in the sky and this should actually make your blood run cold especially with recent governments in the US a technological tyranny is one where government approved code must be running on every node in the network with no way to remove it that's just one executive order away really and the other book he wrote that's that's wonderful that addresses this is what called Rainbow's End which again is set in a world where DRM is mandatory he actually explicitly talks about running the GNU heard as an illegal act that one of the characters does at some point you get your choice of classic Windows Mac or Linux so hey it's not all bad but of course it's running on the kernel that contains the code by the Department of Homeland Security which is the only people who can actually access the hardware and the reason that it's very disturbing to me is you know as people like to say the computer industry and drug traffickers are the only industries that call their customers users well DRM actually downgrades the user to a renter which in my mind is even worse you're even lower and the trend really seems to be as far as I can see it is towards as the legacy systems of on-premises servers are going away is you end up with DRM infested user devices that you can't change in any way using web APIs to talk to computers that you don't own clouds essentially via hostile terms of service and by hostile terms of service I mean in terms of service that say anything you put into that cloud is ours and you can't take it back out again obviously terms of service where you can actually get your own data back a better and these terms of services may arbitrarily change so I mean that's the world that we as engineers appear to be building for society and I don't think this is a terribly good idea so few of the you're missing missing the real shouty bit at the bottom so I mean you know everybody has their own DRM horror story but I mean it's appropriate that printer manufacturers are one of them HP likes Mark having self-destructing ink cartridges that will lie about how much ink they've got so you can't refill them tractors and the famous the famous quote from Bob young Bob younger red hat would you buy a car with the hood welded shut about the superiority of red hat and open source software well yes you are buying cars with the hood welded shut because if the third-party repair shops don't get access to the software to fix them or to diagnose them then yes you do have to take it back to the dealer who can decide to change it and revoke your license you're not buying the tractor you're getting John Deere claims you receive an implied license for the life of the vehicle obviously DRM in media wonderful quote from my colleague Ian Hixon about the the reason for DRM in media is essentially not to stop the user copying stuff because stuff appears on copied sites all the time it's to put the control over the makers of devices that play and the most shameful thing of course is the W3C standardizing DRM in in web protocols that is an act of vandalism I think that will that will cause untold damage going forward so oh thank you yes that that's shame on them that is just just outrageous and and yeah terrible so how does dpv3 help not much really a little so here's the interesting thing I know of several products I'm not going to name them that the requirement of using code in those products that was GP over v3 caused the companies to default from DRM closed to be able to open them up to vendor modification now I'm pretty sure if they were able to choose alternatives to that GP over v3 software and a different license or GP over v2 or whatever those devices would be locked down fully DRM's unable to be modified by the user so you end up with a developer mode switch simply because that GP over v3 software exists and he's needed on the device so you know as a free software advocate and from a free software perspective GP over v2 isn't good enough it doesn't prevent the lockdown of a user device and I really don't want people to have locked down user devices it's too easy for lawyers at companies to say well allowing user to modify its risky let's not do it even though we're using dpl code let's just lock it all down and one of the things that we can help with is to try and educate vendors about the value of having open user communities and the best examples for this I can see excuse me are the routers the DDWRT and others that are fully open because of the lawsuits brought by I think it was the FSF in the early days and the other one is I think this was from the actions by conservancy I'm not 100% sure on that allowing the Sammy go TV community where you actually have a user community that allows you to replace the firmware on your TV which is a I mean a great thing I I haven't done that but so how do we so so going from the shouty parts to try and be a little more positive this was the bit that this was what it was supposed to be about in the first place and how do we in the Samba team actually try and work with vendors and get them over their lawyers who are sort of like you know you're making you're removing my comfortable GPL v2 pair of shoes and making me wear these new hobnail boots I don't like them this GPL v3 stuff so what we do is obviously we have to find out about them they have to reach out to us we have to communicate but when they do that we try and reach out one of the first things I will do is offer to have a conference call or bring conservancy lawyers to talk with with their lawyers about helping them to achieve the goals that they want by using the software so you know we'll offer them legal help to interpret GPL v3 I will usually offer them technical help to help them architect their products because a lot of these vendors you know at least for Samba an SMB serve SMB to even Active Directory it's a commodity it's very easy to get you have a bike from Microsoft you get it from us a bike from other vendors it's a very very mature market there's no reason to there's no value in having a better an SMB serve than anyone else everyone has a good enough SMB server you can use Samba you can use one of the proprietary ones we're all good enough so the value is how do we help them architect their products if they really want to keep something secret if they that's what their commercial value is that they want to have how can they achieve that while still using Samba because of course I would prefer that they would use Samba because having them in my community makes my community better than having them use fully proprietary software all the way down so I have actually helped and we have actually made changes inside Samba I know this is kind of heresy and a free software conference we've actually changed things to make it easier for proprietary vendors to keep code proprietary if it helps make Samba better and helps us structure our code better I don't think it's a terrible thing to actually do that and help both of us and the other thing is the the day of the the amateur programmer turning up and doing something like Samba is is is kind of we do get some amateur help but it's much less than we used to when we first started although we do we do try and grow our programmer community that way the practical fact is a lot of the programmer community now who work on Samba they are paid to do so and they are working for vendors who are using Samba in ever more complicated products so how do we try and achieve this well firstly I try and get past the help desk and the legal staff and the management and I try and get a relationship going directly with the engineers because most engineers even people working for companies that create lockdown DRM infested products don't want to create lockdown DRM infested products because they're engineers too and they don't like you know if they're creating a lockdown router they don't like the fact that if they had to buy a router they don't want it to be locked down either they want it to work and they want to be able to fix it so try and get to the engineers try and work with the engineers try and get to them early the worst thing that can happen is someone to come to you and we have had this happen basically say oh I have this product with Samba in it isn't it great I want to work with you now and you look at what they've done and they're basically linked proprietary things directly and you're like oh great it's hard to get them to redesign at that point what we'll do in that case is we'll not normally invoke GPL violations on them we'll work with them we'll say look right now you have what you have but this is how you really need to change this code to be GPL compliant and we'll help them do that and then of course we encourage them to upstream their code changes and what we have actually a great success rate with that we are very upfront with them about what they can do and what we'd like them to do in order to make Samba better and if they want to design thing that's convenient for them and it also makes Samba better then I'm happy to help and in fact I put a priority on reviewing their code and helping it get upstream in fact although I code a lot a lot of what I'm doing these days is reviewing other people's code changes to Samba to essentially keep them happy and contributing because I'm getting more out of that than I can sit and write in a day so how can you make the hobnail boots as a GPL v3 work for your vendors so don't try and compromise so far that you're essentially giving away everything and I think Bradley is going to touch on this in his talk later on and he's keynote so I'm looking forward to that essentially you have to stand up loud and proud and you say I'm a free software developer I don't like DRM I don't down like the lockdown stuff I don't really want to help you do that I will help you use my code I will help you integrate it with your proprietary stuff but I'm not going to help you violate the very principles that made me create this code in the first place I don't want lockdown environments I don't I want to be able to change stuff let me let me help you create a product that does what you need and we'll still do that and it's possible you can have DRM lockdown devices that can be as I've mentioned before that can be flipped with a switch into a developer mode and at that point you don't necessarily have to support it you don't have to support the software anymore you can restrict what it can do on the network etc the GPL v3 allows for all these things most to my understanding most corporate lawyers haven't read it other than the fact as wow this is much longer than v2 it's more complex why don't we just stick with v2 stuff so don't be too judgmental if you are working with Hollywood then DRM is if you want access to that that that content then you're gonna have DRM so be prepared to say prepared to say okay you guys go buy someone else's SMB server or whatever you just can't use that stuff that's fine you know just be prepared to walk away that which is always good in any negotiation and the other thing is as as many people have said here it's very rare that violators are malicious yeah occasionally and kind of we all know who they are where they are but most most violators are just clueless my my favorite one is an audio manufacturer who no source or offer in any of their products or whatever and they actually advertises a selling point we have a custom Linux based product that I mean that that kind of disconnect is just gross stupidity that's not those guys they're not they want to make nice audio they don't they don't really you know somebody gave them some software they put it in their advertising at the best they know how those guys are not trying to rip people off they're just dumb so be nice to them be nice to them okay so other things that we've learned over the years distribute your copyright ownership we have always preferred individual copyrights to corporate copyright and that's an interesting case it works until that kind of works on two levels one sometimes corporations like that and originally our first contributions from Microsoft I think came about because they thought I don't I'm not a lawyer so I don't know whether this is true or not but they considered that they might be able to get people to work on Samba under personal copyright which would prevent exposing Microsoft owned patents because the people who were doing it were giving us personal copyright and not Microsoft copyright maybe the other thing that smearing out the copyright does is it avoids corporate capture now the Linux kernel I think it's pretty close to being completely corporate owned and and once that's happened you know you see the fuss that happens when essentially corporate developers who are completely tied to their employer don't want to see any enforcement because it's going to damage their job you don't really get much real enforcement in that case so the other thing that gplv3 allowed us to do is it allowed us to open up a little bit and allow some corporate copyright we do that now we will allow we have a certificate of ownership you send in once you've done that from a corporate email address we will accept corporate copyright coming in one of the reasons for that it's actually an interesting I'll do it very briefly essentially in the early days of Samba Trig and I found out about a vendor who was violating the gpl by accident they had in they had bought a company that was selling an SMB server that they had taken Samba put it inside a BSD kernel linked the whole thing together and shipped it and they were stuck it was like well we're going to ship this product in three weeks what do we do the new owners had realized that this was a disaster so Trig and I essentially because we were such majority copyright holders it was known by corporation we were able to say to them okay we'll allow you to do this and the next release do it right which they did and a third party who should remain nameless who was paying for work in Samba tried to assert corporate ownership over this and the reason that they gave for doing that was that they wanted to be able to sue other companies essentially that the red hat what Richard was talking about at Red Hat they wanted to be able to count to sue somebody to stop them from distributing a product so having large amounts of corporate ownership essentially takes those decisions out of the hands of the individual developer and I have a great faith in the individual free software developer most of them except for someone in Germany Richard already talked about seem to be very reasonable people so using it to expand your community most users understand why DRM is bad but they don't really understand what alternatives that they have most users go for convenience and they're kind of like well you know it may be DRM's but it's very easy to use so you need to educate and this is this is why we try and explain to our users why we use dplv3 obviously we can only talk to the users on our mailing list you're a complicated product so you need a lot of most people using Samba in a complicated way need to have some interaction with this in order to use it successfully the guys who just buy someone else's NAS don't really do that but we if someone does buy a NAS and they say hey I want to be able to modify this software you know that for some reason it's not working for them they want to change it at least we're at that point we're able to explain able to explain to them yes it's because we chose this license that we were able to give you the freedom to modify this stuff if we were still on gplv2 yeah we could give you the source code but good look on changing it on your box there's nothing you can do and and we have no redress or way of changing that whatsoever you know obviously try not to be too judgmental there's open source developers who basically especially in the Linux kernel who seem to have come to the conclusion that the DPL was a bad idea and don't really want to support it anymore Greg Crow Hartman who when asked what when you would you actually enforce couldn't come up with a very good answer to that and the other thing I like to point out is that a gplv3 developer is just a gplv2 developer who came across a lockdown device just just like it you know a conservative is a liver who got mugged you know eventually gplv2 only zealots are gonna run into an ever-shrinking world of devices that they can do anything with outside of their employers and I don't think they're gonna like the world that they're hoping to make right now so be nice to them when when they change their mind I'm not kind of I kind of screwed up it was it was better one run off my laptop so how does gplv3 make the world a better place how can you use it to make the world a better place so so the point I hope if you take away one point from this talk I hope you realize that judicious creation of just small amounts of gplv3 software can have a big effect on the vendor ecosystem if those pieces of software are critical enough important enough they can lever they can they can be the amp that moves the rubber tree plant they can force things in the positive direction and is John Sullivan here so FSF why is glibc not lgplv3 yes I'm talking to you he knew about you know I was gonna shout about this I told him yesterday so your flagship license all of your software needs to be under this it is ridiculous that glibc is still under v2 only I know why they did it they're frightened they're frightened of what's happening to GCC with C line they're frightened of it happening to glibc there and my my my comment to them is that's gonna happen anyway the people who don't like gpl who created C line they're gonna do that to glibc whether you're real license or not so why not make the world a better place and stand up for the principles that you're supposed to believe in all right and with that bit of shouting and I noticed John didn't turn up I don't know whether slides are gonna be but wherever they are I'll put them so I'll be linked to the Boston website on the page for your talk thank you very much Jeremy we have time for maybe one or two questions hi thank you for your talk just real quick question on your corporate capture yeah can you mention a few projects that you think are vulnerable to this and in addition do you think that this corporate catch corporate capture term can apply for non-relicensing sort of conditions so for example if you have a large foundation which has a lot of control even if it's not going to have the entire copyright ownership um so I mean I found well corporate capture can happen in many ways but what I really mean by corporate capture is the decisions on the project being taken out of the hands of the developers so I don't necessarily mean all a copyright owned by corporations or the technical decisions can still be left to developers but if essentially the direction of the project and how it runs and what it does is out not under the control of the people who wrote it that's essentially the thing I'm trying to argue against oh linux is definitely one of them I mean that's I'm not sure I could name other projects straight off the bat I'd Sam is not one of them we actually have a very diverse community of people who hate each other mostly we actually had we actually had to go to that's one more question yeah okay so I have a question about one point you did not address at all which is when we have system where we have safety issues and so my team is working in the automotive sector in fact inside automotive great linux which is a fully open project but we still cannot use GPLV3 because this is going to taint the full system of the car and I think most of the people will understand that we cannot open as a software of the car like we can open the software of a router okay I'm not so sure that that's true so as today so as today we've been asking the question on how if we could implement a car with a secure boot where we could protect the software as a critical software and have other software running GPLV3 that people could change which is today not possible so the end result is all the automotive project I'm aware of and any other critical project like in the industry they just prevent using GPLV3 because we don't know how to handle that risk and hang on a minute you can absolutely do that so long as you don't use if you have a system that you think is so critical that nobody should change it then absolutely you can't be using GPLV3 but if you look at what of the accidents happened in automotive software Tesla has essentially had accidents none of that software is free software in any kind so just by saying I won't use GPLV3 isn't going to protect you from the lawsuits okay we have to wrap it up thank you so much Jeremy I have to take this outside self that matters thank you


What is communion and why is it important? Many of us take part in communion. However, many times we're not actually sure what's taking place, why we're actually doing this. What is the significance of communion? Well, when we look into the Scriptures we see that communion is first introduced to us by Jesus as he is observing the Passover. And before we get into that point, let's go back and look at when we see the Passover happening. This is in Exodus in chapter 12 and we see that Moses is told by God to tell the people to initiate one the first day of the year, the first month of months, will now be taking place for them, not necessarily for the whole world, but for the Jews. And in that on the 14th day they are going to observe a Sabbath. And on this Sabbath they are going to take the blood of this male lamb and take this blood and put it on the doorpost.  Now, not going too far into this difference of that, we go forward into now Jesus is having a sharing this Passover meal and he's instituting for us what the Passover is. And so let's go to Luke 2219 and Jesus says when he comes in he has taken the bread and has given thanks and broke it and gave to them saying this is my body which is given to you to do this in remembrance of me. So before we go further let's talk about this doing in remembrance of him as often. There is no prescription, there is no direction or command to say how often we can or should do it as often as you can. So some churches may have or observe communion every Sunday, every time they come together, every other time once a month. There is no prescription but there is a way, a prescription as to how you ought to observe. Let's go back to Jesus instituting the Passover and so continually he says do this in remembrance of me and in the same way he took the cup after they had eaten saying this cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. And so Jesus is for these Jews he's instituting one a new covenant for them taking them out of the old covenant. They might still have a little bit of foggy it's a lot of misunderstanding as to what Jesus means by this. There was some confusion. He's saying this bread is my flesh and this cup is my blood. Well they don't get the full significance of this they'll see this in just a little bit when he is battered and bruised his body being the flesh being broken in torn for them and that they must also consume it not necessarily in a physical manner but in the same also relates to or is spoken of about the blood and we see that also on the cross when his blood is shed. As a matter of fact he makes a statement that kind of confuses a lot of his followers as well as his disciples. So if we go to John 6 49 he says your fathers now he's speaking to the Jews but the disciples are there as well he says your fathers ate the man in the wilderness and they died. This is the bread which comes down out of heaven so that one may eat of it and not die. Notice what Jesus says he says I am the living bread that comes down out of heaven and if anyone eats of this bread he will live forever. And the bread also which I give for the life of the world is my flesh. So that can be a bit confusing to them obviously meaning them don't understand it and the Jew and the disciples are probably scratching their head wondering what does this possibly mean. Notice in 52 he says then the Jews began to argue with one another saying how can this man give us his flesh to eat.   For my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him. As the living father sent me and I live because of the father so he who eats me he also will live because of me. This is the bread which came down out of heaven not as the father's ate and died. He who eats this bread will live forever. These things he said in the synagogue as he talked in the prayer.  Well them understanding who he is not necessarily that they're supposed to eat his flesh literally and literally drink his blood. We have the benefit of hindsight. We have the benefit of revelation where we know the story and we understand what he's speaking of. This has to relate this ends up relating to what was spoken of the day that he broke the bread and took and gave the disciples the same with the wine. This is what Jesus is speaking of. All of this is speaking obviously not physically but he's speaking of what they must do in terms of their faith in him. Verse 60 says therefore many of his disciples went when they heard this they said this is a difficult statement. Who can listen to it but Jesus conscious that his disciples grumbled at this said and does this cause you to stumble. What then if you see the man ascending to where he was before it is the spirit who gives life the flesh profits nothing the word that I've spoken to you are spirit and our life but there are some of you who do not believe for Jesus knew from the very beginning who they were who did not believe and who it was that would betray him. Now Jesus is speaking all of this in relation to what his flesh and his blood just like he gave on the day when he broke the bread and gave the disciples and told them to eat and also the same way gave the blood or the wine to symbolize the blood and said take eat and drink as well take and drink as well and so he's speaking all of this for them to commemorate him and so they are to do what he does on that Passover day as far as communion is concerned in remembrance of what he is about to do as far as their concern but as far as we're concerned what he did to eat his flesh not physically but in terms of to consume understand who he who he is what he did on the cross for us and then as as also he says to drink his blood obviously again not physically but remembering what he did as he shed his blood for us and so if we go forward to 1 Corinthians 11 Paul makes it a little more clearer for us in chapter 11 23 he says for I receive from the Lord that which I also deliver to you that the Lord in the night in which he was being betrayed took bread and when he had given thanks he broken and said this is my body which is for you do this in remembrance of me so when we do this what are we doing we are remembering what he did notice what he says though he says also verse 25 in the same way he took the cup after also after supper saying this is the cup of the new covenant in my blood do this as often as you drink it in remembrance of me as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes so what is he saying anyone that is taking communion here's the point of it when you take communion you are remembering what he's done you are not to take take it and have no idea what you're doing you will be doing so one that's one way of doing it in an unworthy manner which we're going to read just a little bit you do so remembering that he literally died he he poured out his blood and sacrificed his body on the cross for us his blood the wine the cup and his body the flesh all for us and so when you think about that when you take communion you're doing so as a memorial to yourself because of what he's done verse 27 look what he says though therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner this word that's used here means not right and also not worried which can cause a little bit of confusion what's meant by unworthy well I would say that unworthy would refer to either the manner of you doing so kind of in a flippant fashion or just not being saved at all because what is happening is you have not placed your faith in Christ but you are commemorating what Christ has done look what he says if you do so in an unworthy manner the person does so shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord in other words almost as though you were the ones that put him there as a matter of fact it was our sin that put him there but a man must examine himself and in so doing so he is to eat of the bread and drink of a cup for he who drinks who he I'm sorry he who eats and drinks eats and drinks judgment to himself himself if he does not judge the body rightly very important the whole point in purpose of communion is to remember what Christ did on the cross his body being broken in torn and the blood being poured and if a person were to do so and to do so not necessarily having a bad day that's not what he means in an unworthy fashion but to do so in a flippant fashion not having any care or concern you end up bringing judgment upon yourself you don't do it to get full you don't do it to be ritualistic you do it as a way of reminding you and others before others what he has done for you and so the importance is to remind us and ourselves often as we can what he's done for us amen