Good afternoon. Welcome to Vancouver. My name is Martin Horville and this is Jonas Vermeulen. I'm the Principal Solutions Architect for Australia, New Zealand and my colleague Jonas. I'm product line manager for Nuage, covering Europe, Middle East Africa. So we're presenting today on Nuage Networks Enterprise Grade Networking and OpenStack or how IT needs to deliver networking with high availability, scalability, interoperability across multi-site environments seamlessly with existing heterogeneous infrastructure and vendors and interconnect private clouds with external private clouds too. That's really what we're talking about today. So as an introduction I'd like to first set the parameters around what we believe Enterprise wants and we've gathered this from a lot of our customers. Essentially driving the business is faster time to market, a lower cost and higher quality, reduced operational expenditure and ubiquitous, easy to manage, maintain and consume technology. The technology that's driving this business change throughout the market is the trend of IT as a service. So self-service from a catalogue, on-demand, an operational expenditure model for charge back, pools of resources that can easily be adjusted. We see that with the platform as a service type environments, availability of integrated applications in shared environments, so even application platform as a service and short cycle provisioning. So moving from longer cycle implementations to much shorter. The enterprise is complex. There's existing hardware, hypervisors, platforms, apps that can't be virtualized as well as platforms such as mid-range systems, multiple data centers, remote branches, remote workers, the list goes on. It's a very complex environment. As well, pressure from the business to perform, hidden IT, Amazon workloads as an example, being pushed out by people in marketing, other areas of the business without central IT even knowing what's going on, add to that reporting compliance and in many cases a limited set of highly skilled staff to implement all this. What we see to enable all of this is essentially a simplification of this complexity. Scalability, abstraction, flexibility and extensibility, we think of the key approaches to ensuring that we can deliver successfully to enterprises leveraging the new technology like OpenStack Private Clouds and Hybrid Cloud. This enables consumption to the enterprise and consumption is what they're seeking as I mentioned, IT as a service. This is really the complexity that we see in data centers. We need to eliminate that to enable consumption as a service. What OpenStack delivers to the enterprise, faster turn up for the business efficiency. It does minimize costs. We see that with examples like PayPal, DevOps, single set of APIs enabling these short cycles across the business, not just within IT, but DevOps applications being implemented out in other divisions as well. An open ecosystem of vendors, freedom of choice and much stronger enterprise support from vendors. We see this with some of the distros from Red Hat, Canonical, et cetera. Networking environments are highly complex. How do we manage those going forward with this new way of doing business and this new way of doing technology? We believe a policy based approach to networking really is the key. Starting with policy templates on the left where we can define them once and then use them many times across the organization like copy paste in Word. We see with some of the work we've been doing with other vendors with group based policy, which is an open source project and part of the OpenStack project as well, a set of commonalities that we can define with that abstraction. Users, application types and business rules. And with this, it allows flexibility with simplicity within this complex environment. We can then apply those policies out to the environment, as I said, many times in the same way that you would copy paste. We also can introduce the complexities of those environments within the abstraction, such as three tier applications, external web servers, middleware, databases, all the rule sets, load balancing, firewall requirements, all set as a template. As I said, design once, use many times. Across the data center, enterprises can then deploy these services in multiple data center environments across the WAN and also in different silos within the organization, whether they're using Zen, KVM or ESXi hypervisor, and in fact, whether they're using OpenStack or CloudStack or vSphere. Within that complex environment, we have things like IP address management, DHCP, DNS, load balancing firewalls, new traffic flows of east-west as well as the edge that needs to be secured. How do we do that? It's through this policy templating engine. We can define all of those capabilities and components within the template once and then apply many times. The enterprise environment can then be leveraging that ubiquitous policy engine, excuse me, across all of their locations globally in multiple data centers and as I mentioned, with different cloud platforms. We had a presentation yesterday in a demo and we've got another one this afternoon around this. This is one of our reference architectures that we actually have running, using different cloud platforms. This one's within OpenStack, using different distributions of OpenStack, completely federated across the environment. So the themes that we're going to address and Jonas will continue on with are abstraction, scalability, flexibility and extensibility. I'll hand over to Jonas. Thank you, Martin. So what we want to do in the remainder of the session is actually to go in more detail into each one of those more bigger themes and give you a few examples of what enterprises need or what technical challenges they have and how we can address some of that with OpenStack or with the combination of OpenStack and Nuage. For abstraction, that will actually mean how do you model your networks and how do you use a policy when you transition your application through a lifecycle, ranging from first development where you do things in isolation through to test and to enter Q&A to production. We're going to see how you can actually do the reuse, multiply, design ones and reuse multiple times philosophy. Obviously, that brings us also to an aspect of scalability. When you design a cloud, you're actually going to see a lot of endpoints that has to be managed that have to be governed under that policy. So the aspect of scalability is very important in the context of networking. Now, in flexibility, the example that we want to develop on is how do you connect this X as a service, whereby in an enterprise environment, you see this mixture of legacy firewalls, load balancers that are non-virtualized. You see some innovation coming up there. They're virtualized, but sometimes they're also fully distributed. How do you connect that all up and what are the models that we see prevalent in an enterprise context? Finally, we want to talk a little bit about extensibility. How do you stretch your cloud from one site to multiple sites to also go to public sites? It's actually building on the same philosophy as the Keystone Federation, where you actually have one database or one source of identity. We're actually also going to look, how can you do that from a networking point of view? Can you stretch your networks? Can you also maintain one source of policy where you're actually that you can apply across multiple cloud deployments? Let us get a start of how we enable abstraction and service velocity across these different environments. I actually want to take a step back and here explain a little bit what we see how development environment look like. Typically, projects are done in a very isolated way. They're small project teams. They're developers. They're developing their application and they shouldn't harm anyone. They want to run even multiple versions of that. They're here to trade their little bubbles. They can all develop them in isolation without any communication with something else. What it effectively means on the networking side is that once I develop my application, I actually want to extract my configuration, my network policy, and I want to use that later on. Otherwise, I have to redo it again later. I also see that I will get a lot of distributed routers for this. They don't have to be distributed, but typically we see that to make effective use of your infrastructure and to avoid that you have to do configuration or your hardware routers, you want to make them distributed. You want to make them fully in software so you don't have that dependency anymore of a centralized node or of a hardware router that does the particular routing for that developer instances. You also see that there is typically an overlap of IP space between them because you're in different versions of the software and while basically developer, you don't want to care about what particular IP space you're working in. I mean, you work anyway in isolation. Now, once you move then on to a test environment, you move away from that isolation. You're effectively working in an environment where all applications are bundled up or where they're in one bigger bubble, they can all communicate with each other. And so effectively, you still want to make use of that policy defined before and reuse that in your test environment. From a routing perspective, it also means that I'm moving away from a lot of small routers. It's actually a big, very large distributed routing instance. And I'll also move into an environment where I get a unique IP space because here I actually want to test my communication with monitoring tools, maybe with a centralized DNS or IPAM. I want to have authentication running. So there is a lot of shared infrastructure that I want to validate here in this test environment. And production essentially is just a copy of the previous. So I think again, it's going to be very important to reapply that same policy. And the only difference really with test is just that the number of instances could be different. So when we then thought about, okay, how can you reuse policy in an in between those different environments, it's actually not so trivial anymore because your network infrastructure or your subnet schemes are going to be quite different between the two. Your IP addressing will be different. So you kind of have the choice what you're going to do. You either will have to modify your cookbooks or you're going to have to modify your maybe scripts to deploy your applications so that they know about the new IP addressing scheme. Or the alternative that we see is that you can use an external system to define your topology and enforce policies. So effectively you're going to can use or you can use group-based policy or you can use another policy system that are going to apply to the environments or to the routers that are defined in OpenStack. So this is an approach that we have developed for a number of our customers and essentially here what you see is an example for a test environment. On the left side you see how you model a full test environment from a networking perspective. It is this one distributed big router, one logical, that combines or make sure that it connects up all the different projects. So it could be something like B2C sites, some consumer analysis project, stock application and each one of those project has its own policy around it. The important thing is that all these projects can communicate with each other and yet they can still have their own policies for instance security groups to limit their east-west traffic flows. Tenants can see only their own subnets when you work it like that. So tenants think about an OpenStack, they typically see their own routers, their own subnets. If I use a system like that the only thing what I need to do is actually to map the subnets defined in this particular project to map them in the tenant context of OpenStack and as such a particular tenant could see as developer subnets, could see its test subnets and could see its production subnets yet the routing and policies are very segregated than defined in an independent way from each other. What I then effectively can do is with my policy that I've developed or that I've fine-tuned in my developer instances, I can start pulling that out, I can start making an export of that, I define my application per application, I can export it, I can maybe store it somewhere centralized, I can share it with others on GitHub, I can export it to another site and then in the next phase of my application development I can reapply it in my test environment, I merge it, I fine-tune it, I can get approval because that's still important in enterprise context. Before it actually moves to production. So essentially I'm going to get like a definition of a policy, a definition of my network structure about all the security rules that is very specific to an application and that I take from development through to test to production. There is no variation between those three environments and it's always going to be a system that is going to check and enforce the policy itself. In this example you could also mimic those environments in other locations as well, so other data centers, etc. Absolutely, absolutely. That's the nice thing if you have a centralized catalog of your policy definition. They're managed by configuration management tools, they get up and what we see is that you have a typically a centralized lab environment where your R&D is sitting for your software development but the actual deployment of the application could happen in different parts and different data centers and so they can take this one validated design and reapply it in multiple locations. In the meantime you might think how does it like for instance from a security perspective how this is such a policy actually look like and this could be like an example of that where I have two applications, my B2C site and my stock application that each have their own policy around what ports need to be opened, what ports are allowed and in my environment that combines all these applications together I still want to have a single list of all of them together. Whether we expect or what we see that the network administrators don't want is that there is still a capability to define a top policy list that defines all my infrastructure policies and these infrastructure policies they would allow to the network people or the operator people to always access for instance the VMs themselves they would always they always have to manage it via SSH or they always they want to make sure it's secure there so they drop talent sessions and so they always have to be applied regardless of how the application looks like inside. Now as I add on applications every application actually want to have a separate definition of what policy describes it so this is an example for the B2C that could have different ports that it opens up or that wants to drop and I have a different definition for stock application. Finally there is also some bottom list that says anything that was not allowed is for instance a drop. Now this whole list has to be compiled and would have to be applied out on every hypervisor that hosts a VM that runs in this test environment. So it is a process that runs in the background but essentially the whole definition of this policy can happen upfront you can save it you can manage it in your configuration management tools and you can take it from one location to another location. You can also use it to for instance to do backouts or rollbacks. So suppose you have an issue in your production environment you can actually take the policy that is valid at that moment you can take it out you can roll it back you can roll apply it in your test environment. So you kind of have a direct replication of your current network topology and your policy put it in place in your test infrastructure. Make sure you understand what the behavior should be find tune it again and then reapply it for instance there are some hidden slides here. So this was a bit about abstraction and velocity right. The next thing we want to address is what type of flexibility we see that people want to have to deploy firewalls to deploy load balancers or to set up a VPN as a service. Obviously the default option when you're using OpenStack is to use what comes out of the box firewall as a service load balancer as a service VPN as a service. The way how that is deployed is effectively you have a network node and in there there are certain namespaces where you have your HAProxy running or you have your north-south firewall or your VPN service. Now this is a software implementation it's automated but if you look in an enterprise environment it could be that they want to use a different model they may want to use an existing firewall or an existing load balancer and what we effectively enable with new hash networks is to also connect up those centralized appliances throughout a gateway. It can be still a software gateway or it could be a hardware gateway but effectively you want to ensure that the context or the virtual firewalls or the virtual context that you're defining in your load balancers that they are tied up in the networking configuration of your tenant. So essentially in this example if you have like for instance a tenant network the green one you want to make sure that it links into the virtual context of the physical firewall or load balancer and we did some of that integration with F5 with Palo Alto as well on the firewall side and what we're using to in the open stack site to model this connectivity between the tenant network and the network or the VLANs on the physical load balancer firewall is a provider networks. There is also projects defined under layer 2 gateway which effectively makes it a bit easier and we can make a direct mapping and that's something that we see coming up in Kilo or in Liberty. So this is centralized non-virtualized now as innovation kicks in we obviously want to distribute our network functions. So distributing network functions means that it's not anymore centralized in a network node but I can start distributing for instance my load balancer function and the example here is that here I don't actually need anymore a network node because my function is being distributed and effectively I'm still using the load balancer as a service module to deploy a new load balancer for a particular tenant to configure the pools to configure the VIP but the instantiation of that load balancer function happens in a very distributed fashion. So here the example that we are developed is together with AV networks it's something that you can also see in our booth later on or I think it's in their booth this afternoon quarter past four and we see this system end to end working. Last option is actually to look at the firewall side of things or we're actually seeing a more push to also use a distributed agent framework that is multi-tenant. So essentially what we then allow is that an agent a network agent is running alongside our OVS or our VRS inside every compute host that can inspect the traffic and in case something happens or if something special has to happen with that traffic that we can actually maybe drop it maybe redirect it at least do something special with it. These agents we see them under the form of a VM could be under the form just of a process or container or a docker. The type of functions that we see sitting in that type of agent we've implemented a few by Nuash itself that's like the proxy R port DHCP function so effectively you capture DHCP it's a local agent that would answer there it's not like being centralized anymore the same thing with metadata agent metadata service we're also doing the storage proxy for Swift so for instance if you want to access storage you're effectively gonna capture that requests and instead of going in an overlay network to go to your storage you can actually break it out and directly access it from the hypervisor so by an agent or you can apply more security related functions layer 5 to layer 7 work. So I think overall what you see here is that there is a number of options that you have to connect up access to service except whenever you deploy your open stack environment have a look to that and considerable works best in your environment. Now lastly we also want to see a little bit about how we can connect clouds to other sites and where we come from is that typically we see like larger financials actually a lot of enterprise I mean any industry they wouldn't just have one data center they would have multiple and the question is what you do with like your application that are sitting across those data centers and do you replicate all your infrastructure across the two and do you manage them very separately or do you try to at least have some kind of synchronization between them some kind of replication so at least some of your own burden is taken away and that things are happening behind the scenes that are making sure that either users or networking or getting synchronized or accessible from other sites and this is exactly the use case we're working on from a networking perspective on the user side of things that has actually something we get with kilo and actually before already a bit with identity federation now on the networking side that you have to think how can I also federate my network is there a possibility that I can access my resources that are sitting in another site can a VM that sits inside one can it ping a VM inside two or in a public cloud without having to go over a breakout gateway without having to go over a VPN particular service actually would I be able to define a service that stretches across those networks and can I define a subnet in my other site that still uses the same routing instance and my first in my primary site for instance and can I even define for example a security group or a policy that takes in resources from site one and site three and considers them as like one because it's them all as for instance these are database servers and can I have one policy that says nobody can access database service except for this particular firewall for instance so this is the type of problem space that we wanted to work in and that we are trying to solve with new ash and we actually enable that since our first release two years ago by allowing to have a centralized policy engine to deploy that and to control new ash in to control the networking in every site with a new with our new ash plugin what that means is that I can indeed have a network that stretches across multiple open stack instances I can have them a layer two subnet that stretches across I can have a single routing instance that routes between site one site two and a public cloud and I can really go into my open my new ash engine and see hey these are all my VMs and this is my network topology and I can map them into every open stack environment now we also saw that this topology is something that it's great but people sometimes want to make sure that there is no shared infrastructure between those sites they really want to make sure that from top to bottom from their provisioning stack down to the data part everything gets replicated so that they get absolute independence between site one and site two now what we therefore allow is something that we call a federation of a policy and in this particular deployment we would effectively deploy the new age via the new age directory in every site the local directory the local policy engine is then responsible to resolve your local network requests but in case you have a stretched network in case you want to access a resource from a remote site at the time of start-up of your VM it would actually contact the home VSD it would contact the main VSD to ask what is now my policy what is now the networks I need to talk to what are my security policies that I need to comply with and this is something that we would call federated policy in both models in this one and that one I actually now able to stretch my subnets I can have subnets created in a public environment that can attach to a private instance I can have VMs I communicate between them and I can have my security policies across sites so I think overall it's like thumbs up we're actually can establish multi-clouds distributed they can all talk to each other using one network policy that's effectively how we have realized the picture that you saw in the beginning where we've seen a stretched cloud ranging across America's Europe and Asia Pacific so overall let's go to conclusions we have a number of needs that we have identified in the very beginning here we got an abstraction that we need make sure networks get consumable and what you actually saw here is that we can solve some of that by applying by being able to define network policies that are defined on an as you need basis we got scalability scalability is something I mean we can talk I mean we run actually a lot of our tests there are some videos we can share with you but in a lot of our scalability test actually in Amazon and Amazon we run them with containers because it's containers in VMs and we can start up them in a very easy fashion and run those scalability tests ranging from 20k containers now up to 100k containers and we kind of see that to ramp them all up it actually takes us an order of magnitude of minutes and the reason why we can do this so fast is because we have a distributed control plane that is going to calculate how all these containers are going to have to talk to each other what network is needed to tie them up all together this is basically the reason why we believe we have a very scalable solution I was also showing you some of the flexibility that we enable if you move your cloud forward and you start thinking about services like VPN load balancer firewalls you may have different desires than others and so you need to have that flexibility to connect them all up and lastly I was showing you how we actually can federate the network across multiple sides yeah with that we want to thank you for your time here and we would like to open up here for questions so the demo that Jonas was talking about which is actually showing the reference architecture that we had up on the screen earlier he's been shown at the RV Networks booth T9 at 4.15 this afternoon so if you want to have a look at that in operation and that's actually implemented in our in customer data centers across across different locations you can see that in operation but if you have any questions we'd be more than happy to answer them for you yes we will absolutely so we enable any workload on any public cloud environment by a software based virtual route switch that sits on a VM so therefore unlike many other vendors you don't need access to the underlying hypervisor in that scenario and you don't need any other hardware or software in the back end of that cloud provider so then that VRSG module which is the virtual route switch module can then bring in all that information from say the core data center in your private cloud as an example or in fact you could as we have done with soft layer run the entire solution in soft layer as it's all software based it actually gives us some other benefits as well because I mean typically in a public cloud there are quite some restrictions in terms of the networking you can build up there you can't I mean it's very difficult to assign multiple IPs have a lot of vNICs even run some layer 2 multicasts it's typically blocked so by effectively deploying our virtual switch on a VM and I have for instance containerized workloads we're actually overcoming some of these limitations that you see in public clouds and that's been one of the key arguments why people are looking to effectively deploy the NASV switch in that public cloud environment. The other advantage as well is you you're assimilating your APIs so as a developer you can be writing to a single set of APIs in any environment whether it's your private cloud your existing data center or public cloud now obviously with our plug-in with OpenStack that further enhances that so we see a like-for-like with the two APIs there. Any other questions That means I'll be able to do the equivalent of having one security policy across like several Amazon VPCs or OpenStack projects. That's definitely a use case you can implement with that. I can say that I want all of them to always share and inherit a few policies. Absolutely. The only requirement is that you're using the Nuage plug-in for each of those OpenStack cloud environments. So our OpenStack plug-in interacts with the default OpenStack security groups.  I mean so to be honest I mean there is a number of the advanced network topologies that are just not I mean that you're just not capable of modeling in OpenStack at the very minute. So for those more advanced network topologies yeah you'd have to make your network topology in Nuage right you make your subnets you say hey these these are the things that need to be stretched these are your that one policy I want to make sure it's applied everywhere and then I'm actually mapping your network topologies or your subnets in the OpenStack instances that you want to bind it to. It's something that I mean it's used in most of our M.Va or customer cases like that by the way. Any other question? Okay thank you for your time. Thank you very much.


Hello there, my lovely beautiful internet friends. Welcome back to my channel. As we dive into today's video, I wanted to give you just a quick content warning that we are going to be touching on subjects today that involve abuse in my past. Nothing's going to be explicit in detail, but if this is not a topic that you would like to hear anything about today, which is completely understandable, I've linked a couple other videos down below that are light and fun and absolutely nothing serious that you are welcome to check out instead. But with that being said, let's dive into today's video. I'm going to be sharing today about a very positive medical experience I had. Shocking, I know I've talked about a lot of not so awesome ones, but this was a situation that needed to be handled sensitively and actually was.  Having experienced sexual trauma, I developed a real aversion to anything that involved sex, sexuality, sexual organs, anything like that, unless it was in a completely controlled, understandable, compassionate, good environment, right?  But it also happens to be something that for many of my years, I avoided like the plague because putting myself back in a situation where people I really didn't know were going to be all up in my business for lack of a better term was awful. And the few times I've had to do that in the past, there was a ton of anxiety. I had to take medication. It's just not a good experience. But recently, I actually had a very positive one dealing with doctors in the ER and having to have a very unexpected pelvic ultrasound, which spiked my anxiety up to a thousand because usually if I have to have like an OBGYN appointment, I will schedule it a month in advance so I can mentally prepare. So a doctor coming into the room and being like, we're gonna do this in like 15 minutes, put me into, you know, instant tears and kind of a panic attack. So I wanted to tell you exactly how things unfolded, the really positive things that they did to help me out, some things I did to advocate for myself in hopes that this story might help you if you ever find yourself in a similar situation or dealing with anxiety around these sorts of exams at all. And as the story begins to unfold, I would like to introduce you to our amazing sponsors. Quick word, I really appreciate that they were willing to be a part of this video talking about the subject as it is something that is sensitive. And I've already loved this company for a very long time, but their willingness to do this with me means that much more to me. So let me introduce you to my favorite jewelry company, Ana Luisa Jewelry. I love the jewelry you currently see adorning me is by Ana Luisa Jewelry. Now, if you've been on this channel for a minute, you have definitely heard me talk about this brand before as I love being able to work with them because genuinely, I wear their jewelry just about every day. As I was going through recovery from the ZR visits and the kidney infection and all of that and not showering for days because I didn't have the energy. This might sound a little bit silly, but I would still put on jewelry in my unshowered kind of gross state because it made me feel a little bit more put together, a little bit more human. On the flip side, I also have used their jewelry for any fancy occasion that I've ever gone to because it's beautiful. I love it. I'm going to pop some clips up of all the videos that you have seen me wearing their stuff and they have a great variety to choose from. Their pieces are amazing to have personally and also make for great gifts and they will not break the bank with pieces starting around $39. Right now, there is a 20% sale going on and you can find that link in the description down below to access that sale and their website. There are a lot of jewelry companies out there, but one of the biggest reasons aside from the fact that I think they're beautiful that I've drawn to this company in particular is the fact that they are all about sustainability. They are a carbon-neutral company, which for a jewelry company is a pretty big deal. These are all a few pieces that they recently sent me. We have this delightful little gold bracelet with these cute little flower charms on it, also this necklace set, and my current favorite earrings that I've been wearing just about every day, these beauties. Check them out today by clicking on that link in the description and without further ado, let's get back to the video. So over the past couple weeks, I have found myself in and out of the ER more times than I ever have been in my life, which is saying something. For really bad pelvic and abdominal pain, I had a bad kidney infection and I kind of blamed everything on that for a little while when we began to figure out that maybe there was more going on. So I had to go back to the ER and while I was there, they ran the normal tests, discovered my kidneys were actually doing better, which was great news, so I shouldn't be having this kind of pain and this kind of lower abdominal pain that felt incredibly sharp and way beyond the normal realm of cramping sort of pain. And so the doctor said, I think we're just going to go ahead and call in the ultrasound tech and get an ultrasound done. And I didn't think much of it in the moment because I've had ultrasounds that are like, you know, over your stomach, whatever before. Okay, that's fine. But the more I thought about it, I was like, the pain I'm having is ovarian. Like the thought of, could this be a pelvic ultrasound began to terrify me and I called the nurse back in. Real quick, if you don't know what that is, it is a fairly invasive, if you are a woman procedure in which ultrasound is actually internal. And so it is way more, I've already said invasive, but invasive than just over your skin. I asked the nurse who called out to the doctor, you know, what type of ultrasound is this? And they're like, Oh yeah, it's a pelvic ultrasound. Being in the ER, being worried about my body and then being told that I was going to have to undergo this thing, which is a huge trigger for my trauma. I kind of broke down. I started crying. I couldn't talk for a moment or two.  And my husband was kind of enough to speak up as I've asked him to do in these situations before and inform them that I was a victim of sexual assault, which kind of explains the reaction that I was having. Now, I actually have not told previous OBGYN doctors unless it came up, like if I was going to have to have some kind of exam, I haven't informed them that this is something I'm incredibly sensitive to and scared of because I was terrified of saying it out loud for many years of my life. In retrospect, I really wish I would have been more forthcoming with my doctors. I really wish I would have said, I need extra help and support when it comes to this stuff because I am freaking the hell out. But I never did that before. I think it was like scared of the reaction or scared of not being listened to and even just scared of putting things into words. So my husband doing that for me, I really appreciated. And I didn't really expecting the thing to come of it aside from them being like, Oh, we're sorry, you're having a hard time. The tech will be in soon. My experience was very different though that the tone really shifted. And I'm not sure if I've already released the video or if I'm about to, but I will be detailing out the whole range of very bad medical experiences I've had over the past two weeks dealing with all of this. But this was the one bright light in all of that where there was suddenly actually a lot of compassion and patience. The doctor came back in and let me know, we don't have to do this. You are completely in control. And because I have had control of my body taken away from me in the past, hearing those words repeatedly was something that was so soothing and so important to know that I was in control here. This is my body. This is my experience. We don't have to do this. We can schedule it for another time. Sincerely, whatever you need. That was absolutely incredible of her to do. But beyond that, they went ahead and let the ultrasound tech know ahead of time and she came in really quickly introduced herself, you know, looked me in the eye said, this is who I am. This is what we're going to be doing. I understand that this might be difficult for you. Is there anything that I can do or we can do to make it a more comfortable experience for you? They weren't even ready to do my exam yet. So there were a couple other people to get through, but she took time out of her day to come talk to me hear any concerns that I had. And even having those two positive experiences with professionals really lowered the amount of anxiety that I was feeling in talking with the doctor talking about different actions. There was also the suggestion of medication. You know, there are things that they can give you that make you a little bit more relaxed, which in this case, I was like, yes, absolutely sign me up sounds good, which I normally might not, you know, ask for or accept. But in this situation, it seemed like something that be very beneficial to my overall mental and physical well being. So I went ahead with that. So the ultrasound tech leaves comes back when it's my turn and continues this conversation of, Hey, you know, other patients I've had who have had similar experiences to your past trauma have told me that it's really helpful if I talk them through absolutely everything. So how does that sound? How about I tell you absolutely everything before I do it? I'll be super communicative. And I really appreciated that. And that is exactly what she did as she went through the process of insertion and going through the whole exam, which took probably about 20 minutes. She told me absolutely every movement, everything that she was doing, why they were doing it that way, what images they were taking, what they might be looking for me. Here's where we're going next. And just that constant communication was amazing. Also, they made it very clear. I was more than welcome to have my husband in the room with me. Even in the midst of a medical situation that was otherwise pretty unpleasant, I was very impressed with how this emergency room handled this disclosure of I'm a victim of assault and this is going to be very difficult for me. When you live in the world that we live in, that's not always the reaction you get. Oftentimes, there's a lack of care lack of concern, very often a lack of belief. Unfortunately, a lot of victim blaming, depending on what kind of situation or conversation you're having. So to have medical professionals actually know how to handle this situation was amazing. It makes such a difference to be respected, to be listened to, and to have people have a little bit even of patience with you. I was really grateful for how those doctors and texts and nurses handled me and the particular needs that I had in the situation. So with that being said, speaking from personal experience, here are just a few things that I would recommend if you are also a victim of assault or abuse or someone who just is very deeply uncomfortable with these sorts of exams or visits. Number one, like I said earlier, I really wish I would have told my doctors prior in life over the past 10 years that this is something I get really freaked out about because then they would have been empowered to better serve me. They could have made me more comfortable. They could have taken more time or had more patience where instead I didn't want to say it. So I just kind of froze up and it can almost become this retraumatizing experience. So first and foremost, if you are in a position where you can disclose, this makes me deeply uncomfortable or I am a victim of something that makes this extra hard for me. Is there anything that you guys know to do that might make this easier for me? That can be a really great way of communicating.  So instead of like dead silence, I mean like, oh, okay, all right, everything looks good like I've had in previous experiences. Someone taking the time to tell me exactly what was going to happen before it happened decreased my anxiety levels significantly and asking a person who's going to be examining you ahead of time if they're willing to do that and making sure that they're on board with that can be a really great thing as well. As a whole, this experience was still difficult. It's not something that I am comfortable with. I doubt I maybe ever will be. But the steps that were taken by my doctor and nurses and tech, like I said, really, really helped. My husband and I were talking the other day about how a doctor's attitude towards you, even if they don't have the answers, kind of makes or breaks things in a lot of situations. And that was definitely the case here. That doctor in particular was not very helpful to me. She didn't solve anything. However, taking the time to slow down, to take time out of her day to sit with me and say, Hey, you're in control here, whatever you need, we can make happen was so abnormal to what I've experienced in the medical system. And I do think that letting someone know I do have some special needs around this thing was kind of the gateway to allow that to happen. And overall, the steps that were taken sort of brought my anxiety level from like a nine down to like a six or a seven, where I'm still not great. I'm still not okay. But it's not a situation that is triggering anything in me. It's no longer feeling like it's re traumatizing. It's just an uncomfortable experience. One that I prefer to not have for a very long time, but unfortunately is a part of being a biological woman and sometimes having these issues. I want to take just a quick detour to say that if you're listening to this video, because you are someone who has gone through some kind of abuse or assault, my heart is with you. You're not alone. I know what it feels like to go through something like that, to live with it, to try to process that trauma, to be met with situations that suddenly bring it all bubbling back up out of nowhere and how weird that can be. So please know that if you're experiencing anxiety around something like this, it is perfectly normal to feel that way. And hopefully some of these steps will help ease some of that for you. And if they don't, there are a variety of resources out there that could help as well. I've linked some of those down below. And if this trauma is something we've both experienced, I'm so sorry that you had to go through that. No one deserves that. You didn't deserve that. It wasn't your fault. And I'm so sorry. This is something you have to deal with. These were a few steps that were taken that really helped to make me feel more comfortable. And I hope ensuring the story maybe it will enable you to have different conversations with your OBGYN in the future if this is something that applies to you. It definitely was very eye-opening to me. I sometimes think that I just shut down to all doctors because of bad experiences that I've had over and over again. But taking a risk and expressing that you have a need, it's very vulnerable, but it also can really pay off in positive ways. And that was definitely one of those situations for me. And I'm very, very thankful for the people involved that evening that made this much more palatable than it would have been. If any of those things sound helpful to you, use them. Fantastic. If they don't, check them out the window. Everybody is different. Different strategies of tactics work for everybody to make you more comfortable. So those are just a few things that work for me. If you feel like sharing any additional things when it comes to this kind of situation in the comment section down below, I would love to hear. I'm sure my other viewers would love to hear from you as well. So feel free to leave that down below. A huge thank you again to our sponsor, Ana Luisa Jewelry. I cannot recommend them highly enough. Like I said, I wear them in just about every single video because I wear them just about every single day. So check out that 20% off sale that is going on right now. Using the link down below, it helps us support this channel. And also this is a brand I really believe in. To my patrons over on Patreon, thank you so much for your continued amazing and generous support. It means more to me than you know. And to you watching this video right now, thank you so much for spending a few minutes out of your day here with me today. You could be anywhere else in the world doing anything else. And you chose to hang out with me for just a few minutes. And I really appreciate that. I love you guys. I'm thinking about you and I will see you in the next video. Bye guys.


It's not a rapper, including Jay-Z, that ain't had some type of beef with their record label. You know what I'm saying? Because even Jay-Z said he had to buy his master's back. You know what I'm saying? So, all them niggas had to buy their master's back. Yeah, we on Boss Talk 101. 101. Yeah, we gon' talk.  You know what I'm saying? Because even Jay-Z said he had to buy his master's back. You know what I'm saying? So, all them niggas had to buy their master's back.  They're the masters and the artist is the slave. That's real talk. So, you know what I'm saying?  And Jay-Z, all of them, you know, he's an exception. Him and Damon Dash had a joint venture, but they'll tell you that this is how a deal go. Okay, so I signed you to a record label, you know, so I get you a 50-50 production deal, which means that you're going to pay 50% of a video. At that time, videos was like three, four million dollars. So you coming in, only me $2.5 million on the video.  You know, I'm going to charge you for everything, for studio time, all that stuff go against your, your royalties. You see what I'm saying? So now, you know what I mean? You sell a million records. If you sell them in a record as an artist, you're going to get 45,000 at the max. If you go platinum, you might get 45,000, depending on how your deal is structured. But the video is going to cost you a half a million dollars. So you're already going in $450,000 in debt. So now, you know what I'm saying? You go out through the duration of your career.  If you're not a good, savvy business person, right? So you know what I'm saying? A lot of these artists, you know what I'm saying? They're getting 15% royalties on these deals. You know, we just started seeing recently that they're getting better deals. Like I said, the young people, because they got YouTube, they could see the bad deals that was made.


Okay, next up we have Josh Triplett and Jessica Marnes All righty, so we'd like to talk to you a little bit about Licensing open hardware as opposed to just as open software So I'm Josh Triplett. This is Jessica Mars We're going to and I want to start off with some of the standard disclaimers I am not a lawyer Jessica is a lawyer, but it's not your lawyer And if neither of us are speaking for any company organization or any other Entity that we may be a part of we will assume if you ask questions. You're not either This is not legal advice Our experience is primarily with us law so that is where our citations are many of the things we're mentioning and talking about Do apply globally or to numerous countries based off of various treaties, but we would certainly welcome any corrections or Commentary from people experienced with the international equivalents or other related law and please do feel free if you've got an Urgent question or commentary to make this more interactive and have a discussion Otherwise feel free to ask questions at the end as well So as I said, I'm not a lawyer my primary day job is that I'm a software architect So let's talk about software architecture first So there's a lot of ways you could put software together You can put source code into the same source file You could link object files or libraries together from multiple object files or multiple separate libraries shared or static You could fork an exec a process You could create multiple independent servers communicate via remote procedure call Communicate via sockets of some kind even over a network. You could have a shared memory architecture between multiple processes You could have some standardized API is for talking between multiple programs for which multiple implementations exist and One interesting distinction here is that these various distinctions don't matter massively from a legal point of view if you're using Permissive licensing if you're using a license that says do whatever you want or do whatever you want as long as you give me credit for it Then it doesn't really matter how you put your software together. You can do whatever you want But where those distinctions start getting interesting is when you start using copy left licenses in that case There is an intent that you're trying to provide of saying this is the scope that I consider this license to extend to And there are various licenses that extend that scope to varying degrees on a spectrum you've got the LG PL which extends it to the the case of linking multiple objects together, but allows some More flexibility and more free passes if you're linking dynamic libraries You've got the GPL that extends through dynamic libraries and up to some other boundary, you know Details to be determined see court law see various courts in the future You've got the AG PL which will extend that out through servers of various kinds And the point is not to say this is where the boundary should be drawn It's to say there are many interesting points you could draw that boundary on based off of your goal and your intent One point I want to make here is we're not claiming in this talk to have all the answers Our hope is that we have almost all of the right questions And then some plausible set of answers that we can talk to you about So that's software architecture and software copy left and that's been you know While it may not be perfectly explored in case law at this point It is certainly something that has been well trodden by many a software engineer and lawyer for the last several decades So let's talk a little bit about hardware architecture and how that leads into open hardware So there are many different ways you could put hardware together as well and many different forms of hardware You could have some physical object that you have blueprints for this is the Voyager probe for example You could have circuits on an integrated circuit the individual pieces of the chip that You know fit together to make one integrated circuit This is the 486 for example you could have many components on a system on chip that have multiple integrated components that each go to may go together on the same physical Chip of manufacture, but at the same time are in some ways somewhat independent pieces put together So here's a relatively new So see this is a set of Haswell chips You you could have a set of almost software like descriptions of hardware in the form of an fpga That the fpga itself is hardware and it is in a way Interpreting that bit stream to implement hardware in a soft way You can glue chips together on a board via pins via some printed circuit board You could have the printed circuit board itself that's designed to connect many components and connectors together Or you can wire those boards together via any number of connectors from PCI to USB and You know on top of the ways that you could put hardware together There are many different forms of hardware as well, so Just like you can compile a piece of source code to get a binary you could have a CAD STL file that you then turn into a physical object via 3d printer or some injection molding or similar You could have a schematic for a chip that gives you the actual circuitry of the chip, but not exactly how it's laid out you could do a Partially compiling and partially manual process to turn that into laid-out masks for a semiconductor and then turn that into a physical chip This is the original four thousand four integrated circuit You could again have an fpga bit stream and then put it on to an actual programmed fpga and ship that fpga in a product You can have a pcb layout in various forms and stages that then becomes a physical pcb And so that's an interesting distinction that it goes beyond the notion of a compiled binary for software Because it's not just that you have a compiled binary you have a physical object some of the laws apply differently and Again all of these things are relatively easy to talk about when you're dealing with permissive Licensing if you're saying do whatever you want then the details don't really matter And most of the efforts going on around open hardware right now are based on permissive licensing So I think where this gets particularly interesting again is when you start talking about copy left and at that point We really have to start talking about intent. What is your goal in trying to use copy left for hardware? What are you trying to enable? What would you like people to be able to do? And we can talk about various boundaries. You might want to draw or various Pieces that you would say well going up to this point We would say copy left extends But I would say there's few people in the room that would say that just because you have a copy left license on a board That you should have to free whatever is on the other end of a USB connection But on the other hand if you have two circuits on the in the same integrated circuit Manufactured with the same mask on the that might reasonably have a copy left license extend that far and somewhere between there There's a line or even a set of lines for different licenses that we might reasonably agree on So in addition to those intents then there's the question of how do we implement that with software We can use copyright as the exclusive right that backs our Licenses that allows us to then choose what subset of those rights we license and under what conditional grant of permission So with hardware the situation gets a little bit more complicated and more interesting and with that I'd like to hand it over to Jessica to discuss the legal implementation of that Thank you now actually I need that this will be a challenge. I have two devices in my hands at the same time So hopefully as Josh was talking the wheels were turning in your mind You were thinking perhaps of parallels between software and hardware. Are there actually any hardware designers or developers in the eyes? awesome Actually, that's kind of terrifying Because I'm probably going to get this wrong is Josh mentioned Not my day job But anyway, since we have experience in software and in in licensing We sort of naturally look at the licenses that we know and love and that are OSI approved and think how can we apply them to? to hardware and excuse me Obviously permissive licenses are easy as Josh said if you don't really have to worry about anything except just giving somebody attribution or credit No, no problem Copy left is much more interesting and non-trivial because you have to think of things like boundaries And boundaries and hardware are much different than they are in software There are some close parallels like Josh was saying the perhaps two circuits or two cores on the same die That are on a board connected to some other thing You there's there's boundaries that are really far away sort of easy to see and boundaries that are fuzzier So you need something like copy left I think in order to Sorry, I'm gonna go over here We need something like copy left In order to open hardware, and I'm sorry that was a bad segue. I should have had this slide up earlier Um, everyone here familiar with copy left goals, right most important is probably enabling the study of the design in the preferred format Formaking modifications to design people need to be able to modify and distribute what they modify The person who originally came up with the design the license or should have all the same rights afforded to them that the licensee has and so That's something that gets protected or is insured by making derivatives available under the same license Not one of the official for freedoms But one that we've talked about earlier today is making sure that recognition or attribution of the creative origin of the design happens And then of course ultimate goal by having something under a copy left regime is to expand to the size of the open commons I think there's a couple of additional considerations that we want to think of for hardware anyway Hardware specific goals and those should be that any any necessary Components that you aren't going to build yourself or so non self-manufactured things Should be standard or readily available So nothing made of unobtainium or that's available only in minimum purchase quantities of a hundred thousand So I would say those would be I am goals for for open hardware I Josh was talking also before about how exactly we make these things work And we know that we use copyright for software Copyright under US law actually under all us grants the creators certain exclusive rights And the fact that people have exclusive rights mean that they then have something that they can choose to license with others so Really quick review because I know even though I don't know how many people are lawyers in the audience fewer than hardware developers, but okay, so Even so most of you guys probably know this stuff too, but in the interest of completeness. I'm going to talk about each of these Sources of exclusive rights for authors and creators so copyright patent mask work which might be one that's kind of new to folks and trademark So copyright just again is a refresher. There's five exclusive rights Three of them are probably most important for both software and hardware So that's reproducing the work distributing copies of the work or creating derivative works based on the work Subject matter for copyright There's a whole lot But really two are going to be important for hardware and those are literary works And that's probably are primarily going to be important for the software that is going to enable hardware And by the way, I'm sorry Assumption that everyone was thinking that I was I'm talking about electronic hardware I'm not talking about just a plain physical object that doesn't have any circuits in it Literary works and the pictorial graphic and sculptural works and then just for completeness in case anybody is interested in what the entire scope of US copyright law covers I listed the other subject matter The next source of exclusive rights for creators is patent Patent law and that gives inventors the exclusive rights to do four things make use sell or import the inventions And there's four areas of subject matter under patent law Most likely thinking about hardware machine and manufacture are going to be the applicable ones But process and composition conceivably could also have to do with hardware So you might wonder, you know open open patent patent excludes people Why would you possibly want to patent something that you want to open? Which is a legitimate question And the reason that I can think if you didn't already have a patent the reason why you might want to go get one is So that assuming that you had a hardware design that you had licensed under a copy left terms If someone wasn't fulfilling the terms the copy left terms of that license and you terminated their license You could still have rights under your patent To go after them for some sort of damages But patents again sort of contrary to free and open They're also expensive and time-consuming to get and they only last for 20 years But all is not lost so it's not it's not like patents are totally useless You could file for a patent and then never get one or Even not not actually filing for a patent just publishing your design can serve an important purpose In terms of keeping hardware free also and so that's you know the idea of Defensive publishing or putting something out there and making it prior art and I put a little plug down in the bottom corner My slide here. There's actually a presentation tomorrow from the what are they called the open patent project? We're they're going to be excuse me talking specifically about this subject So I would definitely check that out if you're interested. I know I'm going to be there, but Patents don't make a ton of sense, but again have to talk about them in the context of exclusive rights so mask works are interesting and Maskworks actually came into being in 1984 because of the Semiconductor Chip Protection Act Which international internationally Semiconductor Chips are protected under? Something it's called trips and what the acronym stands for right now is eluding me, but So close, but yes, okay, there's an S there too But anyway came came into being to protect chips And it's sort of a hybrid between copyright and patent it doesn't give you all of the same exclusive rights of either one of those But the important ones are that you can reproduce the mask work And import or distribute a semiconductor chip in which the mask work is embodied So it's kind of interesting the mask work doesn't give you any exclusive rights until it becomes embodied in the chip but then once it does You have rights to keep other people from basically cloning your product Interestingly, you might have noticed that the there's no language about derivative works there Maskworks do not give you the exclusive right to create derivative works And reverse engineering is under is allowed underneath the scpa So it's conceivable that someone could you know take a chip that I build and reverse engineer at our study It makes significant modifications to it and then Build you know their own and ship it and sell it But the one thing or one of the things that stands in the way of that is actually making ships is really expensive and really hard So I think at the time that this law came out or that this was enacted It was a bigger deal I think maybe it would only cost like maybe 50 million dollars to reverse engineer and make a chip But I think that figure has grown and exponentially since then And subject matter again a mask work is something that's fixed in a semiconductor chip That's the only thing that mass quarks apply to and Last but not least trademark trademark the exclusive rights associated with that are the exclusive rights to use a mark And a corollary to that then is the ability to prevent the use of that mark or a confusingly similar mark by another party Subject matter for trademarks a word name symbol or any device used to identify a product The thing about trademark as opposed to the other three sources of exclusive rights that I just talked about This is the only one that I don't think is a really good candidate for opening and the reason for that is that Trademark is it's associated with you your brand and your identity So you don't want people to be sticking You know your trademark on a product that doesn't live up to your quality standards but it also indicates a single source of origin which is Not really consistent with the whole principle of open development right which is a sort of decentralized And multiplayer multi-party model, but I felt it would have been remiss if I didn't talk about trademark at least a little bit So there it is. That's the last I'm going to talk about it So now that we have our foundation or we've been reminded of the sources of our exclusive rights in various Objects, let's talk about hardware and forms again So Actually go back one second For those of you who aren't hardware engineers The difference between developing software and developing hardware the biggest difference seems to me and again This is me as a lay person is that there are a lot of different steps involved in creating hardware and those steps interestingly different different tools are used different parts along the journey and different exclusive rights can attach at different places and To me that's interesting from a legal perspective because potentially you can put different licenses on things at different parts and Depending on where in the stream you're combining things. There may be different effects happening So now I can talk about printed circuit boards PCBs I think are a really good example of what I was talking about where there are these different steps that have different artifacts that get created that are Potentially protected by different exclusive rights at different stages in the process So start out with your schematic capture, which is basically just representing the logical design of the circuit Can't copyright or can't protect a circuit nuts It just it is it's the fact but the the graphical representation that I've put out here is something that could be protected By a copyright the output of this schematic capture process. There's I guess usually three one would be a proprietary design file another would be this graphic so something that's usually like in a PDF or a JPEG format of a visual representation of the circuit and then Netlist and component information files the proprietary file the design file and the diagram are like I said, they're protectable as Expressive works the net list and the component information probably aren't protectable because they're so functional But interestingly the net list and the component information are the important Wait, does this have? Yes, the pointer. Okay Those become the input to the second part in the PCB process Which is the layout where the designer is actually coming up with the physical implementation of how the circuits are going to work and It's not really dark in this room. So you can't really see how complex it is, but it's it's really beautiful Pretty No argument. I think that a certain degree of artistic skill and creativity is required to place, you know routes and figure out where components are going to go The output of the layout process are a series of files called Gerber files and what they represent Most definitely the fruits of that creative and artistic labor are Protectable by a copyright and since copyright gives us exclusive rights That means you could license them under a copy-left regime or any other open licensing regime of your choice And then last but not least those Gerber files get fed into the tooling at a PCB manufacturing house And they make your PCB you have this manufactured board that embodies the design the actual board itself Now it's no longer protected by anything Although I suppose if it was sculptural or really expressive in its shape It might qualify for protection under the pictorial graphic or sculptural works, but probably not Basically the only thing at this point that would be Eligible for any sort of exclusive rights would be any designs that you had screened on the surface of the of the board but anyway the PCB an example of the multiple stages the different artifacts that get produced and in this case they're actually all protected by copyright but Examples of the different exclusive rights that could attach at different points So silicon then is interesting We'll start with talking about mask works over here on the left. Whoops Dang it left I had There we go a picture of a mask work Remember mask works don't actually have any masks don't have any protection under that mask work Law until they actually become fixed over in the piece of silicon what you see on the right, but over here Just when it's existing is a mint a mask. This could be protected under copyright Right, and then over here on the right again final product Here you get the mask work kicking in and it's protectable under the scpa provisions but before a Mask work even exists before you start to build the masks you start out with the design of the chip and one of the things that I think is testament to how Difficult and time-consuming it is to produce or to design a Semiconductor chip is the fact that what has become really a large industry in and of itself in the tech industry is The licensing of cores IP cores Which are usually broken into or referred to as either being hard or soft but these are designs that are made by Third-party vendors or there's you know some companies all they do is cores other companies do a variety of things But the idea is that they are Pre-configured or pre-designed blocks of IP that can be dropped into designs thus enabling people to design more quickly You see up here Dang it. I keep wanting to push the other thing On the upper left This is a drawing of what's supposed to be a system on a chip and you can see Very distinct blocks in here. Those are cores These are supposed to those are representing hard cores and the things that's interesting to me anyway about cores and whether they're hard or soft is Well, they they affect the way that the licenses might work on them when you use them in a design the hard cores again, you can see how they're very distinct if you have a hardcore IP block that you basically drop into a design and you Interface with the rest of the design using standard interfaces to communicate then it stays pretty discreet stays by itself If you had a copy left license on that IP core It wouldn't be extending the copyright. Sorry the copy left terms to the rest Of the cores on your silicon, but what if you had a hard core that you put into your design and it turns out that you Couldn't use standard interfaces in your design. You had to make modifications in order to make that core work Well, then those modified interfaces would probably become a derivative work of the copy left core And then you would have copy left obligations spreading beyond that core and going at least to the interface that you had to do So requiring you to make the sources available for that Soft cores on the other hand are Well, they're more like software. They're malleable. They're in an editable format Down here. I've got a picture the same picture Josh had of an ASIC You can see there's definitely some hardcore logic blocks in here, but then there's a whole bunch of other Area that is more tightly synthesized There's been a lot more integration that happens when you're using soft cores and Engineers correct me if I have this wrong But the the nature of the soft IP because you're getting it in HDL You're getting it in the the human readable form describing the circuit is that actually It's going to influence the design the rest of the design and the other design the rest of the design is going to influence it They're sort of this interplay Which if you think about it in software terms, it's it's very much like co-mingling or what do we say? It's not even linking. It's like taking snippets and merging things together So I think if you're using a soft IP core, you're almost guaranteed to have a derivative work So again, you could have a spread of Copy left you could open up your design way big if you didn't want to have your design be open But you wanted to use a soft IP core What you might do is take the soft IP core and try to harden it up before you put it in your design I guess that would be one way that you could sort of try to minimize the boundary creep or the boundary encroachment, but Anyway, those are the differences between hard and soft IP as I understand them and I just thought that was really interesting It's worth mentioning as well that this is another place where your intent matters such that it's reasonable to ask As we develop more understanding of how to apply copy left to open hardware Where we want our licenses to extend we may reasonably want Hardware equivalents of the LG PL as well as hardware equivalents of the GPL with you know tighter and looser Boundaries for how far they extend and that would play nicely into this as well So I didn't think that I forgot to mention and this is sort of Unfortunate that you reminded me when we were talking about intent all of my great intent to have an open design is going to be for not Or maybe for not at the end here when I get down to Actually finishing up my design using my Eda tools All of the tools have proprietary libraries in them So when I combine whether they're hard or soft IP cores that I licensed whether it's you know I did the full design myself from scratch when it comes time to Combining them with the libraries from my Eda tools I may very well end up with a derived work that now is going to have license compatibility issues because like I said all of those Eda libraries are under proprietary licenses. So I have a couple of options I Could choose to license or you know make my cores available under a permissive license because that makes things easy or maybe I could make them under a weak copy left license or Another possibility not sure if we can actually Take this as gospel, but what if we had a Okay, what if what if we had a system at the equivalent of a system library? Exception for cores. So a core library exception. I'm not sure if you could read the gpl v3 as enabling that but If you could that would be great and just by the way the gpl v3 family of licenses Is the only or the only OSI approved licenses that mentioned ask works in them, which I thought was interesting So they were kind of thinking I had to hardware Related to the library problem that I mentioned for my soft and hard IP cores run into a similar problem with the FPGA down below and so we've got the Pieces to look in it's built over here. You got a program with a bit stream There there is no open tooling from any of the major FPGA vendors That to enable the the creation of a bit stream to put into the FPGA So once again, I could have done all of my other design have it be opened, but then when I okay, you're gonna correct me Yes Yes, well in that are you from the ice storm project? Okay, but you know about it. No, no, okay, so so here's a problem. So so again I can't program my my my FPGA without getting in trouble. So really the best that you could possibly do I think if you were coming up with the design for For an FPGA would be to make your HDL designs available under an open license And then provide instructions for your users how they could create the rest of the design files And how they can generate the bit stream, although that still doesn't solve the problem for them It's just moved it over to the right now They're the ones who are going to be creating the the thing that has the proprietary libraries mixed with the open With the open license design I suspect that the absence of Or lack of clarity around whether we have a core library exception is Why most of the cores that you see available under open licenses are either permissive or LG PL Because I think either of those licensing schemes sort of gets around the problem and yes, okay So open hardware there is actually an open FPGA the ice storm project guys Reverse engineered that lattice ice 40 FPGAs so they figured out how to do the bit stream And this is actually a picture of something called my storm Which a guy named Allen would created Fully open piece of hardware you can see the open hardware the open Hardware logo on it So if you were so inclined you could get all the get the schematics get the Gerbers get your files Over to your PCB house build your PCB order your lattice semiconductor or like what I don't $15 or something And then you can you can program it No No, the bit stream that that magical part magical last part isn't open not on Intel Sorry, but that's a great question and we ask our friends in the Programmable solutions group. Hey, would you open the bit stream so we could do that? But no it even lattice hasn't opened it, right? It's the guys at ice storm who reverse engineered it because again reverse engineering is allowed under the scpa, but no no vendor has Opened their bit stream If anyone wants to volunteer to reverse engineer and Altera FPGA or Xilinx, that's that would be awesome um Sorry, so back back to my hardware design An enclosure might be another thing that you have in your your hardware design so an original design Created in a CAD tool or it could be some like a scan of an existing object Whether or not your enclosure or your physical thing is going to be able to be protected in any way or whether your design Files representing the object are going to be protected depends on a Couple of things how it was created again, whether it was native in the tool versus a scan of an existing object I'll give you a hint if it's native in the tool might be protectable If you just do a scan of an existing object not going to be protected no matter how much skill or creativity or art was Required in making that scan you haven't done enough transformation to make it make it eligible And then whether or not your design file or the design itself are going to be able to be protected by anything They're going to be looking at whether it's totally useful or creative or you know where the balance is between the two and Courts would do a separability analysis to determine whether copyright was going to apply to anything In this case, I think we would just say that probably the the intel logo Is well it's already protected by trademark, but my design file containing it would be Protectable and licensable under a copyright Just the interesting thing in this example actually this isn't an intel design This is some guy who is infringing on the intel trademark But I thought it was nice, and I'm not going to report it because it's it's in support of an intel open hardware project So I'm going to wrap up briefly before I hand it over to Josh I just want to talk about the state of open hardware licensing today So what would happen intellectual exercise if I had a chip today that was built on an open design and I sold it or I had a PCB that's built on open designs and I manufacture the PCB and I sell it what would happen or what what does the person who Makes the stuff have to do with it the answer is actually They don't really have to do anything if Unless I license the design under either the CERN or the Tapper open hardware licenses all of the other licenses that are currently available or that are designed for Hardware plus the GPLv3 Don't extend beyond the documentation. They don't extend beyond the digital they stop at the hardware Which I think is unfortunate because I think the goal of open hardware Shouldn't be just that you can build it But once you've received the thing that's built you should be able to understand how it was built So I just have a little table here summarizing You know the source availability requirements, which again, I think are really key whether or not The physical hardware gets treated like a binary, you know under the GPL is the source required whether or not you can use it For any purpose. That's an important one For some reason that the Tapper one doesn't have that as a as a requirement but also having having the license be compatible with Copy left software licenses because again, it's the electronic device I'm imagining that I'm gonna have hardware and software of working together So over on the far right I have my ideal hardware license see it has yes all over the place But I also I'm gonna make a specific a core library exception so that I solve my problem with the with the cores and Yeah, if anyone wants to take a stand at writing that license that would be awesome I'm actually the last person who wants to encourage license proliferation But I do think that to make open hardware truly work. We may need a revised license Now I'll turn it back to Josh So One key question you might reasonably ask is why do we care about license compatibility? You know as mentioned on the previous slide one of the issues is that the the Tapper open hardware license for example Does explicitly has some restrictions on what you can use the resulting hardware for and as a result It's a license that would not actually qualify as an open-source or free software license that you know The Tapper folks would say well, it's a hardware license those don't apply But I think that there's a key Requirement here that is becoming increasingly important. We want to support the ability to copy freely between hardware software firmware documentation specifications You may want to take some key piece of the hardware description and copy it into the spec in order to document something or copy something into the comment of a piece of source code or vice versa and The boundaries between those become fuzzier over time FPGAs become more important Hardware is described with software There's the the running phrase that you might have heard that software is eating the world and in some ways it's kind of eating hardware, but you know hardware is not going quietly and there's still a very Interesting subset that is firmly in the hardware design space So the ability to have these interoperate is very critically important. We want to have compatible licenses for these So I'm going to echo the same thing Jessica said that we certainly do not want people Going off and writing their own license from scratch any more than we would for software But if you are you know one of those precious few people who are doing revisions of a Existing well-established software license, please seriously consider accounting for hardware in those new revisions and In particular extending those provisions in ways that make sense such as treating physical hardware Similar to a compiled binary with respect to provisions like copy left So with regard to the open hardware see ecosystem as a whole We're still very much in the early days of open hardware Most production designs still do include some proprietary components Whether it is some part library or some portion of a circuit Or whether it's simply the fact that all of the individual ASIC chips on the board are not themselves open Then we're still very similar to the very early days of free software Where you know the GNU project was a set of more usable more friendly free software tools that sat on top of proprietary Unix systems and they existed within that ecosystem that was kind of carving out a niche of free software and Hardware is still in the same vein of here is a little niche of open hardware that is Carved out within a broader proprietary ecosystem and we want to push to make that more open So along those same lines one of the critical needs for open hardware that we'd be really interested in seeing people work towards Would be more open-source parts libraries, and we think copy left would go a long way towards Growing that ecosystem and building that up to be something that can interoperate with itself very well So, you know as said before we're primarily aiming to provide All the right questions rather than saying that we have all the right answers But at the same time we do have some specific recommendations So in particular for chips if you're doing any form of ASIC design Whether on the small scale or large scale if you want copy left the gpl v3 is currently the best choice of License because it's the only license that actually mentions mask works and covers all the way through to hardware It's not perfect since it does not necessarily extend the Provisions to force the distribution of source code to anyone who has the physical chip But it still goes further and fits better than any other license out there including the The creative commons licenses that have commonly been used for hardware, which don't really include any of those provisions For PCBs you could absolutely use a copy left license if you like It's a good statement of your intent and many people will respect your intent whether there is an Exclusive right backing it or not Unfortunately or fortunately depending on your perspective PCBs as in a physical object form are not actually protected in any way On the one hand that's not necessarily a good thing for copy left on the other hand that can be a boon to the maker community that does do Reverse engineering and development of let me build a compatible board for this random chip So it's it's a mixed blessing We would definitely encourage the development and contribution of open parts libraries to try to get rid of that Proprietary substrate that open hardware is still built upon and if you are drafting a future Copy left license of any kind definitely account for mask works or any other similar present or future legal structure and treat physical hardware like binaries require the source code for it So with that I'd like to wrap things up and invite any questions or discussion Think we may have time for one or two questions Hi Josh I've a very basic question. I I don't even see the point of copy left Hardware I you know I've written stuff under GPL. I've put it out. I've been working lunch for 20 plus years But I don't it you know when I put stuff in copy left in software It frees up a lot of the barriers namely, you know People are free to do whatever they want with it and it costs nothing all along the way That's not the case for hardware. I mean even if you put on a copy left There's the the things I'm preserving are not the same and I'm not even sure the the value That I'm bringing to people by doing so I know there's an argument that can even be made that by preserving some of the rights I'm actually enabling myself to Create cash reserves that allow me to create more of what people like So you could also argue that by keeping your software proprietary that you are developing funds for future development And I think it's basically the same argument honestly We're in the really early days of open hardware. We're in the very later stages of open software The ecosystems look so different right now They looked so similar back when open software was first being developed that you know when you're developing Early-stage software and it is mostly duplicating things that exist but making them free the value of saying hey This is copy left. This needs to be kept open You know it seems like you have a smaller item of value and a smaller case to make for it But at the same time building up that ecosystem and eventually building up pieces of hardware that are difficult to replicate and Easier to work with in an open form that if we want to encourage a broader open hardware Ecosystem and encourage pieces of hardware that would otherwise be proprietary to be opened up Then we're in a position where copy left potentially gives us some leverage. We wouldn't ordinarily have so in particular You know using permissive licenses would You have you have to pay to manufacture it at the same time again software is eating the world in a way FPGAs don't require any additional cost each time you program them So as you're doing hardware development on FPGA Yeah, I use the Tapper license extensively and I believe you when you say that it doesn't meet the requirements You have can you provide me the the rationale for why it doesn't work? I'm not here It has a restriction on use it has to be for a lawful purpose Yes, yes, exactly. Yeah, so that otherwise I'm okay Okay Yeah, it's the same thing that came up in the context of software with respect to like the hacktivismo license Where they said you can't use this to do human rights violations But the problem is the people who would do that don't care what the license says Yeah Reason why it doesn't qualify as an open-source software license, okay, thank you. Thank you so much. Josh and Jessica


We face extraordinary challenges in the 21st century. Nine and a half billion people alive in 2050. We don't know how we will provide them clean water, sustainable energy, education. There are serious problems with the environment. There are serious problems with bigotry. There are serious problems with poverty and starvation. So far we've been unsuccessful in figuring out a way to fix them. I'm hoping that AI can adjust the various factors in a way that maybe can solve these problems. The real opportunity for AI is how we can actually help the 7 billion people that could benefit from these technologies in a practical way. While we can't say AI is general magic, it is giving us core tools to start putting in place systems that we know will help with key issues like hunger, famine, epidemics, overall health and well-being. AI offers an extraordinary possibility of accelerating solutions in the time we have to solve the problems. We are now applying artificial intelligence to the art of farming. A very old industry also adopting the latest in technology. So through artificial intelligence, a farmer can now integrate massive sources of data, whether it's data from the combines, it's weathered satellite data, it's data from the fields, taking all that data together and through an artificial intelligence solution actually making recommendations to the farmer on how he can increase the production of his land. AI has enormous capacity and potential to solve problems that require an enormous amount of computing and pattern recognition that human beings struggle with. The way drugs are going to be designed in the future, and again already starting to be, is by having models of the molecules and how they interact, for example, with say, you know, the virus proteins and then doing a search to find the best drug for the best problem. I think this, for example, is how we're going to cure cancer. By 2020, you should be able to walk into your doctor's office. Your doctor should be able to sequence your entire genome, take that along with your medical imaging data, and compare that with the world's data of genome sequences and medical imaging data. From that, determine the matches between your tumor and others, what the treatments were in those other cases and the outcome did the patient survive or not, and from that, devise for you your personalized treatment and do that entire process in just one day. It's completely possible through artificial intelligence. The UN summit and its goals excite me, particularly with the idea of leveraging what I would call sleeping giants of data. We have accumulated so much data in the world, and with some refinement and some tagging, this data can become available and leverage to address famine, to address human trafficking, to address vicious cycles of economic poverty. If you make progress in AI, you make progress in all these different fields at the same time. So a better machine learning algorithm, if I invent it tomorrow, it'll make for better medical diagnosis, it'll make for better self-driving cars, and it'll do us what else. AI is potentially the most powerful technology that we've ever created, and it's going to create the next form of civilization. It's not happening in 10 years or 15 years, it's happening right now.


Howdy! Wanted to take a moment today and talk about my appreciation for the artists who continue to create amazing fan art for the channel, and for my works on the wiki. I don't always get a chance to say in person to them that I'm thankful, but I am, and that's what these galleries are about. Fans of the channel get involved at this level, always make me smile. Even if I still don't really understand the trend of drawing Dr. Sumerian in a dress, regardless, this one's for the artists. Thank you for watching the gallery. I want to thank two new patrons, Epicotters, who pledged $20, and Star, who pledged $5. Thank you guys so much. If you want to join them, you can head on over to patreon.com forward slash de-sumerian and pledge at any level. When you do, I'll read your names out on my next video and show you in the list on every video after that. I'll see you on Tuesday, and thank you for being here.