So, this debate, the topic is the four freedoms and the open source definition are outdated and no longer relevant in 2020. Our debaters are Amanda Brock, Neil McGovern, Matt Jarvis, Louis Villa, and I don't think I... Oh, I'm sorry. Andrew Cash, as I mentioned, Andrew Cash, and I'm going to give it over to Amanda. So can you hear me now? Yeah. Yeah, okay. So, I am not debating currently. I'm just going to say a few words to you because I caused this debate to be suggested at Falsedem when the debate format came out. And I requested this slot because we had had a meeting last year under Chatham High's Rules as lawyers, and there were some really vicious arguments going on. And obviously, I can't attribute them to anybody because it was Chatham High's Rules, but it seemed like we'd reached a point where this discussion needed to be had more broadly. And this group of people were willing to come and talk about it. I will say that I asked a lot more people to come and talk, and most people didn't want to debate. I don't know if this is common across the debates, but particularly women didn't want to debate. So we have five of us. We did have six earlier in the week. We've had one drop out. So what we're going to do is slightly different, I guess. We are going to run through the panel order of 773383, but we are going to just flow a little bit more somewhere between a traditional sort of high school debate format and a panel session. And we really want to get the audience debating with us, which was really why we put this in in the first place to discuss what's going on. So with that, I'm going to hand over to Lewis, who's the first proposer. So my disclaimer here, I mean, there is the standard disclaimer. And I want to particularly stress that I, until recently, was a card-carrying FSF member and I'm a member of the open source initiative, was a member of the open source initiative board. So please use that in context when I say some things that are going to come across pretty harsh. So, seven, 20, I can go. Someone was impressed that I had all these notes and I said that I can talk about this for hours without notes, but if I only have seven minutes, then I really need notes. So the first thing to know about whether or not the four freedoms and open source definition are still relevant today in 2020 is that these documents are 20 years old. If these documents still made sense 20 years after they were written in exactly the same way that they were written without having a line changed at them, they would be some of the most prescient documents in human history. So it is, I think, not a criticism of their authors to say that they didn't fully understand where the industry was going to be, right? They didn't know that SAS would take, they didn't even know what SAS was. They didn't know that SAS was going to take over. They didn't know about the growth of data, privacy, and ethical concerns, though in the case of the four freedoms, some of those were, the outlines of some of those were beginning to come into view, but the centrality of technology to all those questions would have been difficult to see. Of course, the centrality of open source and free software to the entire industry, that was a pipe dream that we all wanted. And we wrote these definitions in part with this sort of like, well, we will fight to get there instead of with the reality of, hey, we've won. Open source software has won. Free software, pointedly I will point out, has not won. And of course, we've gone from fitting everyone in open source onto the campus of one university, to literally there are more people doing open source now than live in all of Brussels, or probably all of Belgium. I should have checked the population of Belgium before I started this. So, the next thing I want to say about why these definitions are outdated, is where do you see communities anywhere in these definitions? Every time people talk about free software and open source in the healthiest positive sense, they talk about collaboration of communities of connected people. The reason we are all here at FOSDEM is because of the amazing, wonderful community that has formed around this. And yet, if you look in these things, they are all about these dry technical things about copyright law. They speak nothing to what has actually been most powerful, which is the communities that have formed around them. One important way to think about GPL v2, which predates the OSD and the Four Freedoms, is that by enforcing a certain level of sharing, it makes a compromise on freedom in order to help build community. We have lost that language. We don't know how to compromise on data. Well, I was gonna say on source code, but it's also in data, right? Van Lindberg is here, has been trying to get a license through the open source initiative process, where guess what? Software in 2020 without data is junk, it's useless. And yet, the open source definition says nothing about data. It says nothing about how we use this stuff. And so when we have to fight through these outdated definitions. Man, I'm making great time. I don't know, it's got a benefit, a curse. Another thing, so I was actually, let me transition then into the data thing. It is perfectly compliant with the four freedoms in the open source definition to distribute software that won't build, install, or run. And it's limited to the software that you have in your hands, right? So if I got the software from you, then hey, maybe we can put some requirements into place that I'm required to have it. But if it's on a server, the four freedoms sort of speaks to that. The open source definition does not speak to that at all. And so in the world of 2020, when so much of our software isn't actually ever in our hands, the four freedoms in open source definition don't answer that question. And it's central to how we think about things, right? And again, some of these licenses, like AGPL, like the cryptographic autonomy license, which I'm always going to want to call the cryptonomy license, those things aren't spoken to by the four freedoms in the OSD. And of course, there's this question that I sort of alluded to earlier. Is this question of what we use software for? In other words, what is the ethics of the software we use? Now the four freedoms conceptually are grounded in ethics, right? We believe in the four freedoms because we believe that that leads to a more ethical software. But the four freedoms aren't tests of ethics. The four freedoms are tests of, well, can I change this software? Do I have the right, doesn't say anything about the ability to change software, doesn't say anything about, are we, everyone in this room, is in the 1% of people in the world, probably the 0.1% of people in the world, in the level of control that we have over our software, right? The four freedoms has nothing about that other 99.9%. Now, the FSF, to their great credit, does say other things about that. But it's not captured in the four freedoms. If the FSF, the organization, went away tomorrow and we had to rebuild from the four freedoms, it would tell us very little about all this other important stuff, things like accessibility, things like privacy. Look in the four freedoms and you won't find those things. And of course, that was obvious enough, that was already a problem in 2006. When I started law school, a classmate of mine who now works for the American Civil Liberties Union asked me why is software morally important? Now, those of you who've gone to law school know that most people in law school are drunk most of the time. And so that's part of why I couldn't answer her question. But my answer was big and sprawling and they were not convinced, right? To talk to her now and to say why is software morally important is, of course, an obvious question, right? We all know from Facebook upsetting our elections. We know from the privacy implications of all this stuff that software at the end of the day mediates essentially every human transaction. And so who controls software and who can use it has immense impact on issues of justice. And again, the open source definition says nothing of justice. It says nothing of morality. And the four freedoms only tangentially does. To put it another way, when this was about Richard struggling with his printer saying no restrictions on my use was good enough. When this is about Exxon using free software to extract carbon from the ground more efficiently, or the Department of Defense using Linux based cloud systems to bomb the whole world more efficiently. Don't we need to have some sense of ethics in those definitions, right? In a world that is entirely driven by software, we need to be thinking about the bigger picture because access and modification is simply not enough. To quote Bradley, I yield the remainder of my time. You're on your thing, let's just put that on there. Yeah, okay. So obviously we don't agree with Lewis's stand in the middle and I've got my notes here. So I think if we look back to the 1990s when these ideas were codified, it's important, I think, and useful to step back and revisit some of the why these things came into being. So if we look back to the 1990s, mobile phones were pretty uncommon. Mass adoption of the internet was pretty nascent. Many people didn't have home computers. The World Wide Web was just getting going. And as we fast forward 30 years, as Lewis said, software has become completely pervasive in our lives. So the control over the software that you use has become exponentially more important than it was then. For the vast majority of people in the first world at least, computing permeates everything we do at work and in leisure time. And really, open source and free software has enabled all of this. Linux and the surrounding utilities from GNU and elsewhere now runs our planet, everything from the tiniest embedded device to the biggest supercomputers. Android powers most of the world's mobile devices. Tor enables persecuted minorities and whistleblowers to communicate securely. Combined NTPD and all the other low-level networking components power the internet. OpenStack and Kubernetes enable technology disruptions in every industry from telcos to banking. OpenSSL protects our online world. OpenSSH allows us to use computers securely. The list goes on and on. And without free and open source software, we would likely have had none of the global cloud providers. Google, Amazon, Azure and every other player in that space run almost entirely on open source software. And without the four freedoms in the open source definition, our world could have been very different. For those of us who were around during that time, it was not at all obvious that Linux would take us to where we are today. There were definitely points in the 90s and the early 2000s when the open source and free software movements could easily have lost those battles. This was the era of the CEO of Microsoft saying Linux is a cancer. The days of encryption and computing power considered to be offensive weapons that needed controlling. And the days of things like the Skoll lawsuit against IBM claiming ownership over Linux. So there were definitely armies ranged against us. And ultimately the power of community which the four freedoms and the OSD have given us proved to be the best way of producing high quality software. And that's ultimately proved to be the tipping point. So whilst those things are both specific about source code, I think that source code in a way isn't necessarily the most important aspect of that, it's what goes along with that access to source code that's really had that power to change the world. Creating community around software, communities in terms of developers and communities in terms of users, is what has enabled the creation of world changing software projects like Linux, like Kubernetes, like OpenStack. Without community, none of those projects would have been able to achieve the success that they have had and our world would likely be a very different place. As an example of that in the 2000s, Microsoft were giving customers access to source code. But that doesn't actually provide to users the things that are implied in the four freedoms and the OSD. That doesn't give them that ability to change and integrate or the ability to influence the development of that software. That can only happen with open design, open development processes, all of which ultimately come back to community. And I think that the ideas behind the four freedoms and the OSD have also permeated across our culture in lots of different ways. They're powerful concepts that have a light of their own. We can look at publishing around the creative commons. We can look at examples in the legal field, things like GROC law. And we can look at the open hardware movement where we're now applying the ideas of open collaboration and sharing to hardware design and development. And so these ideas of openness have really taken root in our culture. Many very large companies now have adopted those open source principles internally and externally as the best way of developing complex software. So in an era where our entire lives are focused around platforms, where we store our photos, our personal data, our emails, our interactions with our friends and loved ones, openness becomes increasingly important. Non-open platforms do put us at risk of arbor changes in terms and conditions. Often also removing our ability to question those decisions. Our videos might get removed from YouTube. Our Facebook posts get taken down. Our Twitter accounts frozen. And it's often impossible to appeal against those kinds of decisions. We may have access to remove because of where we live, because of our religious beliefs or because of arbitrary political changes that we have no control over. And we've also still got a healthy ecosystem of corporate patent trolls attacking free software on a regular basis. So I'd argue that the four freedoms and the open source definition have become more important as concepts in the times that they were first defined. Whilst it is true that in a world dominated by on-demand computing and software as a service, it may have become harder to appreciate their relevance, but the ideas and concepts that they embody have never been more important. I cede the 58 seconds. Do you want this one? OK. Right, it looks like I have seven minutes. I'm prepared for three, so I will speak very, very slowly. Also somewhat confusingly, I am also going to be speaking in support of the four freedoms because of the fact that there was a change in running order because one of the speakers dropped out. If the open source definition and the four freedoms are outdated, then why have they been used more recently by organisations such as the Open Source Hardware Association or the Open Hardware and Design Alliance or the Open Knowledge Foundation? In each case, there's the basis for their own set of equivalent freedoms and principles in those particular fields of endeavour. So open hardware, open source hardware, open data have all adopted principles that are very closely based on either the four freedoms or the open source definition. And there's a reason for that, and the reason is that those principles still hold and they still work. And my experience, I've been involved in drafting the open hardware licence, and as part of that experience, I found that reference back to both the four freedoms and the open source definition proved to be very useful on numerous occasions, particularly because during the drafting process, people continued to say to us, wouldn't it be great if the open hardware licence could do this, wouldn't it be great if it could do that? They wanted it to, for example, ensure that any hardware that was made and licensed under the open hardware licence was sustainably produced. Great idea. That's very laudable aim, certainly. They also wanted to make sure that any hardware that was produced was fixable as well. So that would easily accessible, things like don't use security fastenings, don't glue things unless you absolutely have to, make sure that you can take things to pieces, you can substitute components most easily. Again, that's a great idea. And more generally, various suggestions trying to prevent the hardware that was licensed under the CERN Open hardware licence from being used for evil, whatever that evil happened to be, whether it was evil that was used as a weapon or in some sort of non-environmental fashion. So we kept on getting inundated with all of these very, very laudable ideas. And we felt very strongly that we needed to reject those because we would have ended up with a licence that was effectively useless. It would have had, it would be so cumbersome to use, it would restrict the use of the hardware so much, we were trying to anticipate a whole bunch of things that really it wasn't appropriate to put in, what in essence is an intellectual property rights licence. And the easiest way to counter that was to go back to the original definitions. Now, there's absolutely no reason at all why you shouldn't campaign for these other things as well. In fact, there's, you know, yes, go out there and argue for environmental sustainability. Go out there and argue that hardware should be capable of being easily repaired and so on. But those are separate issues. And if you want to look at things in the software context like, you know, sustainable community development and this sort of thing, then that's surely a place for a separate set of principles that go alongside the fundamental principles about software freedom and the open source definition. Lost my notes there for a second. Yeah. Yeah, so... I can cross the interview. Yeah, no, no, that's fine. So, yes, I couldn't prepare for three minutes anyway. So my fundamental point is the open source definition and the four freedoms, they remain relevant and fundamental bedrock of what we're doing. There are plenty of other things that are also good, beneficial and we should consider campaigning for those separately, but don't try to conflate them all into a single set of principles. Thank you. I'm speaking for seven minutes apparently. Excellent. I've prepared three minutes worth of stuff as well and I thought, no, it's fine, I can fill that. I'll fill it, it's okay. And I thought I was going to be opposing it but you just oppose it as well. So I'll just kind of talk for seven minutes probably on both. I can start off speaking against. I don't know, okay. So I recently came back from the China Open Source Convention and Tencent there had done a study and tried to estimate how much of the world's computing was now of software running today was open source and they estimated over 95% of all software running is open source. We've won. It's brilliant, we've reached this utopia where everyone is in control and why does it not feel like this? There's something slightly odd here. For me, I'm going to say something slightly controversial which is I don't care about free software. I care about user freedoms. The intention behind making free software is important but it's irrelevant if the reality is that users can't make use of those freedoms. Lewis was quite near. It's less than half a percent of the world's population can code. The chance of users being able to modify their own hardware or being rich enough to be able to afford to find someone and contract someone else to modify that software is bansionally small and it's our responsibility I feel to provide for that user first. Does it matter if a piece of code is GPL or BSD licensed? If your data is being sent to a third party to modify and monetize, does it matter if something happens to be under an MIT license if you can't access your computing because you have a disability or you can't afford a really fast internet connection to get all the latest software or the metadata that comes with it? That said, the question is that the four freedoms and the OSI is outdated and no longer relevant. It is not what kind of world are we trying to make. I put to you that we can't build that world without those four freedoms. Yes, it is, Lewis is absolutely right. I completely agree with him. Openness is important. Community is important. Control of data is absolutely fundamental. I absolutely agree with him. But we can't get that without those four freedoms. They are the foundations on which we build this world we want to live in. To say just get rid of them because it's not doing enough doesn't mean that you should get rid of them in the first place. And my question, I guess, to those who say they are outdated and no longer relevant is simple. Which would you ever move? Thank you. Does that work? Yes. So I've sort of drawn the short straw here. I have to sum up both sides. Set up the straw. Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, no, no, no, I know, I know. But I've drawn the straw. I'm going to explain why it's... Yeah, yeah, no, no, no. Nobody's making me do anything. I'm here of my own volition. I have the short straw because we are five, not six. So we're not even. So I sort of have a double sum up to do based on both sides. So I'm sort of going to try if it's possible to make the case for both sides. And obviously I've just written my notes now to do a sum up. So if we think about what the guys have said, it's very clear and ran throughout everybody's talk that we're sitting in a stage of confusion, right? Everybody has said that there's a lack of clarity, a lack of transparency and a confusion across the half a percent that we agree on in the end that's in this room and beyond. So how do we get to a stage of confusion? I think that if we look back on the history of both the Four Freedoms and the OSD, we see people choosing to work and to give their personal time in those environments because they believed and because they wanted to do something. So they made that decision to go and become developers working in those areas as opposed to proprietary. And that was a really clear decision for each and every one of them to make when they made it. Now life has moved on and we've heard people talk about it being a victim of our own success in some ways. And as it's moved on, I think there might have been a bit of a disconnect. So a lot of people in this room because a lot of you are much, much younger than me have grown up with open and free being part of your day-to-day existence. And that's a good thing and that's a commendable thing but you haven't had to go through that same choice process. And that same choice process you would hope would have been given to you and let you make an informed decision about what and why you do it. But if it's just the norm, you accept the norm and you don't challenge it. And I'm told, I'm the age I am so I haven't grown up 20 years later, but I'm told that it hasn't been clear to people. So I remember having an argument a year ago with a developer I really respect who kept telling me public source and open source were the same thing. And they're not because you don't have a license with public source and if you don't have a license it's not open source, right? It's very clear. So I think we have what the boys have talked about as a confusion for no bad reason and we need to think about what that confusion is, where it's come from, why it's there. And to help us understand not just the decisions the developers made to become open and free developers, we also have to understand what was meant by open and free. So we've got the OSD, we've got the four freedoms but those were developed at a time when we didn't have social media. So we don't see years and years of Twitter feeds, we don't see archives of many of the conversations around some of those. I mean, put your hand up if you believe that the OSI developed the OSD. Where did the OSD come from? Yeah, I know, I'm just going to see. I'm not sure that I trust the hands up thing here. So where did the OSD come from? Right, good. So did Bruce go up to a mountain and heave this bit of stone back down with 10 things to find there that could not be changed. No, he didn't, he didn't at all. What he did was come up with something that in the context and in the time seemed to be reasonable. It's worked for 20 years, so it's certainly reasonable. We've seen the success that the boys have talked about in open source. Maybe we are a victim of our own success but it has been successful. So we've got to give it credit, we've got to respect it and we should try and understand where it came from and why it's the way it is. So every one of those words there would have been thought through. Every one of those words there has allowed us to get to a stage in history where we can say we've won. Right, where we can have this massive conference where Lewis can stand up and with hard facts to back him tell us that the whole of the Belgian country would not add up to the number of open source developers we have in the world. So we have one, but why do we trust something just so absolutely? Now I like to challenge things as some of you who know me know. And I've wondered long and hard about that. Why do we just trust it? Well you have to have something to base it on. Right, so they always say I didn't get a trademark. Does that really matter? Do we care? We know what open source is because we have a definition. But I think that anything that we follow, if we look at laws, maybe Americans you find this different with the constitution that's written. But generally for most of us, we're looking at something there that changes and evolves over time.  Our technology has changed over the last 50 years, over the last 10 years. It's not just the internet, it's the fact you have connectivity everywhere. It's not just that you can access things online, it's the fact that you walk around with a phone in your hand the whole time. So our world is unrecognizable from the time that this was written. It has to be logical and sensible for us to challenge it, right? There'd be something wrong with this group, this group of highly intelligent people if you weren't constantly pushing back and challenging. But I think that for us to make that challenge appropriately, we have to go back and understand what happened, why? What every word means, why every word is there? Where are the things that maybe we don't know about that we need to understand in a context? How do the changes affect those words? How do the changes allow us to develop into something perhaps more of 2020? Oh no. You're going to applaud when you get to the end. Oh no, because I've got so much more to tell you. Right, so I have to speed up. So we should be able to challenge, we should be able to look at this, we need to think more about what changes mean and how that's going to impact us. Can I grab the mic and cross-examine some of you? Me. Me. Stand in the... Well, I want to cross-examine Neil and Andrew, if I may. But we can... Yes. Can I have three for each of them? Sure, sounds good. I guess I'm the other way, huh? So, Andrew, you said that... You said that... Oh yeah, negative time, sweets. I'm going to go into the future. Andrew, you said that these issues of... Well, you mentioned, for example, environmental issues that people wanted to bake into the open hardware. And you said that these are separate issues. But if my labor, as somebody contributing to an open project is being used to literally bake the planet, how is this... This seems to me that it's inextricably the same. Can you explain what you mean by saying that they're separate? I think the thought process is that you need to go through to reach a set of criteria that are essentially about freedom to use something and freedom to copy it and freedom to study how it works and so on and so forth are fundamentally different from the set of criteria that you need to apply when you're looking at wider social issues. And as I say, I have absolutely no problem at all. In fact, I think it's highly laudable to come up with a set of principles that deal with these other issues. But I cannot see how it's possible to try to get essentially one document to do the heavy lifting for all of these things in one go. But shouldn't I have some ability to discriminate and say I would prefer the planet not be baked with the work that I have done? Of course. And so you have a separate set of criteria. So you can say that, you know, that these particular hardware, whatever it is, not only does it comply with a set of open source hardware criteria, it also complies with a set of criteria that I want to apply to it that deal with environmental issues. So if somebody then takes that, then they would have to comply with both of those sets of criteria if they want to continue to describe it as being open source hardware and environmentally sustainable hardware. But if they don't care because they're Exxon, they're free to use it anyway. Well, that's dependent from the person who initially establishes the hardware design. It's up to their choice what restrictions that they're going to put on. There may be mutual incompatibilities there. That's true. That's something that we have to work through. But I think this is a debate that we had quite extensively when we were talking about the CERN open hardware license. And we felt that we just weren't equipped to be able to think about these specific issues outside the scope of the, essentially the sort of license intellectual property freedoms that we were trying to grant people to enable them to use the particular designs. Right. I have one other question that I want to ask you, but I'm going to switch to Neil because we're halfway through. So you asked what would I remove from the open source definition? And I would prefer to think of that as what would you add? Because, so for example, you mentioned accessibility and I know that's something that you and GNOME care deeply about and have the, there's nothing in the four freedoms or open source definition about accessibility. And iOS by every serious use by people with accessibility concerns, believe that iOS, which is definitely not free, is substantially more accessible than Mamo to name the last fully open source mobile operating system I used or early Android, which was more open source than current Android. Should we be adding to the four freedoms or open source definition to be, to take into consideration, for example, accessibility? I think it's incredibly important and I'm sure you agree that accessibility is considered and there is many things. I think we all agree that we need to improve and we need to add. I don't think the four freedoms in the open source definition is the place to do that. I should also point out this big thing here. When I say I believe this, I may or may not believe this. However, as an example of this, I'm not a lawyer. So being cross examined by employers, a little bit worrying. I was on the city council in Cambridge and a motion was passed that we should only use free range eggs everywhere. It's brilliant, fantastic. And we can no longer give flu vaccines to the staff because that uses egg protein and there was no way to guarantee it. Do we want to mess about with ensuring with messing these two things up? I think there's unforeseen circumstances. So if the city council had insisted that everything that all software used by the city council was free software and that meant that accessible staff couldn't use it, would that be okay? Great answer. Okay, so who wants to cross? Is that Amanda or Neil? Who wants to cross Lewis and does anyone want to join Lewis, I guess is it? For the record, I'm not the kind of lawyer who does cross examinations. So, which... I think it's a new thing to us because we don't normally do this in debate, so that's why we're confused. Okay, and so when we get to like 20 seconds before the end of the time, so you hear some of us snapping or rubbing our fingers, if everybody joins us, it's a lovely, soft way to let people know that their deadline's coming and then we all applaud at the end and then they know they have to be done. Oh yeah, sure. Neil's going to redeem himself. Yeah, so I've never cross-examined anyone in my life. I'm not that kind of lawyer. I was a commercial lawyer, not a litigator, so I don't quite know how to do this. Lewis, you talk about the sort of ethical stuff and putting requirements in there, and apart from the fact that it doesn't work within the current definitions, how would you ever make that work in real life? So how do you enforce that? And sort of how do you make those decisions? Well, they're hard. I think the interesting question, I think the interesting answer to that is to say that if you'd ask the same questions about copy left before the GPL was written or indeed even after GPL v.1, the answer would have been, I don't know. Right? But you're making the case for it, so you have to know. No, I don't. What I have to know is that if we experiment, as we did in early open source licensing, I have faith that most of those experiments will fail terribly, but that at least some of them may hit on workable answers. And so the current open source definition, as it stands, rejects all experiments out of hand. Says, if you experiment with ethical licensing in any way, the OSI will wag its finger very, very vigorously at you and tell you that what you're doing is a bad thing, right? And I actually agree with the OSI that 99% of this is terrible ideas, right? But I don't want to be the one to say to that 1%, you know, I try to put myself in the shoes of the people who criticized Stallman early on, right? Who said, copy left will never work, this is unenforceable, this is communist. And if we had let those people determine the playing fields, then none of this would have happened, right? Instead, we allowed some experimentation in licensing and most of the early open source licenses are not used, most of them were failures, but yet some of them did, right? Some of them did succeed. Okay, so give me an example of how you might see that work, how you think that could possibly work. Well, I mean, there's two different, two different levels where this would work, right? One level is the open source initiative could say certain types of discrimination are allowed. And in fact, I would say that the open source initiative has already said that certain types of discrimination are allowed against certain types of business models like say putting proprietary kernels in your phone, right? Like that is a business model that is explicitly disfavored by the OSI because they allow the GPL, right? Similarly, the OSI discriminates against certain SAS business models by allowing the AGPL. Now, we pretend that that's not discrimination against certain business models, except when it comes up to, oh, well, data is a business model, so we can't discriminate against proprietary data. Well, guess what? We already discriminated against proprietary stuff. So we do all the time. So one thing would be to simply acknowledge that discrimination is happening. And allow for a little bit more of it. On the how might it work on an ethical license side, come to Copy Left Conf on Monday. But I think the trick, as all the lawyers know, to writing something that actually works is often about how you manage ambiguity, right? So a lot of these early, there's a very well-intentioned license called the atmosphere license, I think. That essentially said that any entity that had more than $10,000 invested in carbon-extracting businesses, which is essentially every business of any decent size, because of the nature of the stock market and how they invest their money, couldn't use the software, right? And that, I would agree, is unworkable. But you could imagine there's a list of the top 100 carbon-investing businesses themselves, right? And you could simply say, if you're on that list, you can't use this. Every other business can use it. So you say you believe in free and open source software, right? Yeah, no? Yeah, I mean, for purposes of this debate, maybe, for real life, for the record, disclaimer. Oh, come on, come on. No, it's either you believe in it or you don't believe in it. Come on. I am deeply concerned that open, as we currently define it, removes a lot of ethical constraints and doesn't solve actual ethical problems that we have, right? It doesn't make Android more accessible than iOS. We pretend it's better, but if you have any kind of visibility impairment, for example, it's not better. And similarly, if Exxon is using it to extract carbon from the grounds. Okay, is there a danger that you might be being really, really naive and that if you, sorry, Lewis, this is not personal, I may or may not believe this. Of course, of course. But isn't there a danger that if you make this one exception and potentially you open a floodgate for people who might be less well-intentioned than you are in terms of doing that? Absolutely, yeah. How wrong am I? Very wrong. And I eat. How naive am I? Is there anyone other, with all due respect, is there anyone other than the legal Debra regulars who has a question? If I don't know your name, it would be awesome to have a question. Really, and people who think that the motion is right will get preference, so anybody who wants to say the motion is right. The motion was, again, that the, oh, it's gone, that the OSD and the Fourth Freedoms are out of date. Remember for video, please, always speak into the mic. Thank you, Lewis. The motion was that the Fourth Freedoms and OSD are out of date and not fit for purpose in 2020. No longer relevant. No longer relevant in 2020. If you want someone who believes in that, to ask us a question. Karla Piano. Or ask yourself. No, no, no, Karla. I'll ask a question for what Lewis just said. So considering that the history of GPL includes sanctions against South Africa and sort of not putting South Africa on a list in the license, so that once they reformed, then there wouldn't be like a license in legacy having an embargo against them anymore. So if we put Exxon on a list and Exxon reformed, how would that work? I mean, I don't want to get into too much detail on this because I think it's a bit of a distraction from the bigger picture, but there are, for example, in this particular case, there are third parties who publish new such lists every year, specifically with the idea that they could be, that they could reform, right? They might drop off that list and so therefore you might not want universities to divest from them, for example, right? And so if you say, look, if you drop off the list, great. Now that requires partnering with a third party, which historically, I gotta say, is not something our communities have been terribly good at. And I say that with lots of love. So it's not easy, right? I mean, I think something that Bradley told me some time ago that I think is deeply right is that copy left was really a big conceptual leap and I want us to be open to the notion that there might be some big conceptual leaps just because we've seen in the past six months some well-intentioned but badly drafted licenses does not mean that there will never be a well-drafted license. And the question is how we react to that or, frankly, how we get left behind. And I think that's really important both in terms of the conversation about the RSD and on a more broad basis. We have to think about how do we deal with this, right? How are we going to look at changing it? If we are gonna change anything, how could it possibly change? And what is the impact of the past? What does change look like that is done in a measured? What does change look like that's done in a measured, thoughtful way is a really great question to ask that moves us beyond this binary of the debate. Hi, and thank you for this debate. I've been in industry for a very, very long time. I don't know what the four freedoms are. Can we define them? Actually, can I respond to that? Yeah. I said no. So here's the thing. You are in great company. This is something I didn't have time to fit into my talk, but I will take the opportunity to say it right now, which is that one of the, I was speaking recently to a lead developer of one of the most widely used JavaScript frameworks in the world, which is to say one of the most widely used pieces of software in the entire world. And he said, I don't understand why you all are still discussing this. We just think that open source means we get to collaborate and we do it on, we probably do it on GitHub. And as long as I can still collaborate, these needles on, how many angels are on the head of a pin are not super relevant to him, right?  All right. Okay. Yeah, how many of you would feel comfortable coming down here and reciting them? Because I admit I wouldn't actually, Neil. Just before you pass it to Neil, I'm gonna say maybe we need something that isn't open or free to be defined. Maybe there's a need for these other things that people are talking about that they're doing to be described somewhere. Yes, I can repeat them because they've just been placed in front of me. It is basically, you can, you get a program. I'm not gonna read off this because it's a boring way of doing it. You get a program, you can run it. You can use it for whatever you want. And that's actually the first one, I think is what's being talked about here of part of the problem is for whatever you want. What if I make a program and I don't want you to do what you want to do? But that's kind of tied into the fundamental freedom there of you can do whatever you want with it. It's your software, you're in control of your own computing. And I think if, and that is so fundamentally tied into this concept of these four freedoms. I mean, the other ones is things like you can modify it, you can give it to your friends. You can redistribute to the entire communities and there's various tests which come along with that like desert island tests, Chinese distant tests and things like that. But the fundamental, the first freedom, the zero freedom is that you can run it for any purpose. Now, if the author is saying you can't use it for evil for example, then what is evil? And then how do you enforce that? Or if I say you can't, or we have a magic list, what happens if I produced a load of free software and it's absolutely brilliant? And then I get on that list. All right, so thank you very much. So audience, did you learn anything from this debate? Raise your hand. Excellent. And the other question is, did you change your mind on anything as a result of this debate?


My name is Martin Rasmussen. I'm managing director of Copernicus Publications. We are an open access publisher since 2001 and we are especially active in the field of geo and environmental sciences. We are a classical society publisher that means most of our journals are owned by scientific associations and since we are dealing with these scientific communities behind these associations the idea of open access and more visibility and more accessibility of the research output were brought to our attention. We are a non-profit company actually and so we started dealing with open access very early and since in our discipline most of the research is by funding and especially the European Commission funding and we think that it is very important to give this European funded research output even more visibility and also to link the project details, in this case it is FP7, is a very worthwhile thing. So that was our motivation to start in summer 2012 to cooperate with OpenAir and I'm actually very delighted that a number of our publications is now visible via the OpenAir infrastructure. In fact flagging up which publications arise from this funding stream is a fairly new concept but it is definitely beneficial for the funder and this will enable a way to measure research output something that funders are increasingly considering as an important activity. If OpenAir were able to do this also for other funding streams then so much better and we look forward to further collaboration in this interesting open access initiative.


ThinkTechHawaii presents Point Counterpoint, a live open forum on Saturday, May 20, from noon to 1 p.m. That Saturday, May 20, from noon to 1 p.m. The panel will be an open forum for discussion of challenges to health care in Hawaii. The panel may want to discuss the doctor drain, the quality of care, access to care, and or governmental regulation, among other things. Participate with them, give your point of view, let your voice be heard. You can send us questions and comments on the subject. Send them to questions at thinktechhawaii.com. The moderator will be John Waihei. The panelists will be Hilton Rayfield, Scott Grosskreutz, Esther Smith, and Vicki Cayetano. Moderator John Waihei is a former governor of Hawaii and longtime host of our talk show series Talk Story with John Waihei. Hilton Rayfield is the president and CEO of the Healthcare Association of Hawaii. Scott Grosskreutz is a radiologist practicing in Hilo. Esther Smith is a family practice doctor, practicing in Kona. Vicki Cayetano is a contributor on our American Issues series, she is a businesswoman, politician, and an informed and interested citizen. Thanks to our production staff and our underwriters, directors, and supporters for making this project possible. Please watch this important point counterpoint program on thinktechhawaii.com on Saturday, May 20, from noon to 1 p.m. Thanks. We'll see you there. Aloha.


What's going on guys Sam here with late and sports cards, and I am ripping two boxes one 2021 Bowman inception baseball and one 2022 tops archive signature series retired player edition baseball for Seth W So good luck Seth I'm gonna go with Bowman inception first just because archives a little bit newer so Set that I think set that pretty decent on his last Bowman inception I know we pulled three autos out of this, which is pretty cool Make your only guarantee two if I'm not mistaken. Maybe not Maybe I'm just wrong Okay, we've got nice to 75. I've got Mick Abel for the Phillies on the purple got Francisco Alvarez You'll look me Cespidus. There you go Trishon Cosas and Here Bertot Hernandez First auto is gonna be to 600. We've got Brian will bus Nice nice one on the back here. That's 471 of 600 Crats on that one We've got numbered Nice eight of ten For the White Sox you'll look we Cespidus nice hit there Congrats on that one set. That's a pretty nice card I don't even know what parallel that is like blue or something. I want to say It's like a blue Refractor ish nice one there. Congrats on that set.  That's his post Yankee years. I miss Phil if you're watching I miss you on the Yankees Liked watching you on the Yankees for sure nice Hughes. That's it's kind of funny seeing him as a retired player I always envision him as active because I grew up watching him. So That's awesome though. Phil Hughes heck yeah That'll do it for your break there Seth. Congrats on all the hits. We'll get those right out to you man. Thanks again


and how we make the routing rules, along with this, in order to not achieve what the original just showed, the routing rules, and how traffic gets routed. So, this is how the mesh is actually. So what we have here is like, as you showed earlier, that there's an ANWY in every part, and traffic enters the ingress controller, which is also running ANWY, and then traffic exists also through ANWY, which is a dedicated ingress controller. And the idea behind that is that you would actually be able to apply policies as controller to control, or it says reconnecting, network connectivity issues. Yeah, yeah, yes. This thing is still trying to connect to the network. It's still trying to connect to the network. Yes, it says it says network connectivity issues. Okay, so as I was saying, the ingress ANWY, the role for ingress ANWY is that all traffic that exits a Kubernetes cluster and tries to access external services, for example, that you might want to consume from outside the Kubernetes cluster, they would also be subject to rate limits, policy enforcement, and so on. So that's the idea behind using an ingress ANWY to direct all traffic to that. And then traffic in the cluster gets fully encrypted, and it's like with help of Istio Authentication, Istio Auth module, which basically installs certificate per service, and then we set a mutual Taylor authentication between every pair of services, certificates automatically rotated periodically. And so all of this happens behind the scenes. So what you see is HTTP2 or HTTP1 communication between services without, it's mostly with TLS if you turn on Istio Auth, and the traffic between services always goes through. Now, how does this work in practice? What we do is that like all traffic, I mean, we have an init container that basically goes and installs a bunch of rules, IP table rules that literally traps all traffic that enters and leaves the pod and routes them through a specific code. It is basically where that's where ANWY is actually listening. And once traffic gets to ANWY, ANWY basically decides where the traffic should actually go to and then processes it as either a TCP request or a HTTP request and so forth. And in between, and in the course of this process, like what happens is then ANWY has to forward a request, it talks, or when ANWY receives a request, it actually goes to the mixer, it checks if this request is actually allowed to enter the service or not, if it's not, drop the request if it is allowed, then it actually allows the request to pass through. That's the overall flow. And in this context, the pilot basically interacts with the platform. In this case, Kubernetes, like we are also working on adding other support like console, Eureka and so on. It kind of gleaned information about what are the services, what are the pods that belong to the service, what are the various labels that attach to the services and all of this information is gleaned. And with that, we actually like configure ANWY accordingly not to route traffic. The way that actually happens is the way we've structured pilot is like, we have a plugin model, so there's an abstract service model that we have in pilot, which is like essentially saying that here are the services and here are the pods that belong to the service and each service and each pod has one or more set of labels that are attached to it. And then we map this information to, I mean, we extract information from the underlying platform. So in this case for Kubernetes, we extract information, we map it one-on-one to our internal service model. And once we have all the information that we need, then we generate the routing rules and the configuration for ANWY accordingly. And then we serve the configuration to a dynamic API which we will talk about. So the idea behind this is that we do not want to do any sort of hot reloads. For those who have actually done any kind of reloads, you'll actually know the pain of it. So we decided to not do any sort of hot reloads. So ANWY has like almost 95% of configuration ANWY can be dynamically reloaded without having to restart anything. And so there's actually no connectivity or there is no interruption at all. And once we've set up all the ANWYs such that they talk to pilot, they fetch their configurations periodically and they get reloaded. This is how we actually like update ANWYs for the case. So somebody was asking like, how long is the propagation delay for our tools? It basically depends on when an ANWY currently pulls pilot to get the new route tools. But with the newer version of ANWY, what we're trying to do is they just change in the entire thing to GRPC based communication such that whenever we have a new configuration, we can push it down to all the ANWYs. That becomes much more responsive and you have much more control in terms of when ANWY should actually see the new traffic. Now, the, so getting a little bit more deeper into this, in order to, the way we do like service discovery is we do not actually do service discovery. We literally like upload it down to Kubernetes and the idea behind this queue is that service discovery is part of the platform and literally like in a manifested in the form of DNS. So you go, you talk to whatever service discovery it is, you don't really care what IP address of your service discovery returns. It goes and talks to your Qoop DNS, Qoop DNS returns particular IP address, service cluster IP address. See you, I mean, we just need the application to be able to do a DNS resolution and then send the actual IP traffic. Once the IP traffic comes on the wire, we can actually capture that and then from then on, we can look at the HTTP headers for HTTP traffic and if it's TCP traffic, we look at the source destination in order to route the traffic accordingly. So that's the role of service discovery. And what we do is that like, you know, once we get in terms of service registration, so there are two parts to every service management system which is service registration and discovery. Once again, service registration is also not part of it. It is part of the underlying platform, essentially like if it's Kubernetes, it will ensure that the pods are immediately registered as they come up and it's also responsible for maintaining the liveliness of pods and automatically managing the pods. So we can use any other orchestrator as well. So that's the idea behind the adapter model that we have at Pilot. So today we have a Kubernetes adapter and we are also working on a console adapter so you can add an Eureka adapter. So you can imagine that like add an adapter. This was all standard VMs. Yes, yes, that's the underlying platforms typically have this and or like, bring your own. What service? Oh, no, the ANWI and services does not really need to know what service that is. Because we will configure that ANWI from here. So this service registration is just necessary for like us to know what are the services that this is. Can you, today? Yes, because I mean, the way we kind of like we, we assume that once you run Pilot within a Kubernetes cluster as a Kubernetes service, we actually go talk to API server within that cluster and kind of like fetch the information. But I think it's very trivial to actually point Pilot to here's a Kubernetes API server and here are the credentials. Okay. So once like, you know, we have all the information we've propagated down to ANWI and then the service here we expected to like, you know, use standard HTTP contact to be code on service b.example.com get resolved, you get the IP and when the call comes here, then we look at the host headers and then we decide how it's about traffic. And basically, since this ANWI has the list of all pods that are actually serving service B, we do load that at the client side. It goes directly from ANWI, other pod. No, I mean, we do not use a coop proxy or the IP tables that is actually there in Kubernetes to do any sort of load balancing. Because the crux of the system is taking control of load balancing and that's where everything and it's just falling into place.  And then the other part that we actually have is ANWI also has concept of active health checks where each ANWI will actively hold other ANWI in the system for, you know, the health information and like whether it's live or not based on that, it'll actually make load balancing decision. The, there is all obviously some sort of a contention here because Kubernetes also provides some health checks and it'll automatically re-register unhealthy pods system. And then there's also ANWI which does its own health checks. The question is like, you know, who should I believe or like are both required? And the answer is yes, both are, I mean, it's not a definitive yes, but it does not hurt to have both in place because Kubernetes is basically a platform level thing. It detects an unhealthy pod, it's actually gonna re-register the pod from Kubernetes API server and then pilot is gonna detect the change and then it's gonna generate the new configurations and then it's gonna push it down to all the other. On the other hand, when all of these ANWIs are actually doing active health checks, they kind of have like first hand information about who, which of my dependencies are actually healthy or unhealthy. So this, I mean, the convergence is much faster when you actually enable health checks on the ANWIs side. Eventually you would push down the updated configuration but until that unhealthy pod goes away, the ANWIs that are making the call would actually know who's healthy and who's unhealthy. That's the idea behind having health checks from ANWI as well as health checks on the platform level. Yeah, there will definitely be a delay, but that delay is bound by how quickly does Kubernetes recognize the fact that the particular pod is down. So that once that information goes back to the Kubernetes API server, then and pilot basically gets a notification because all we do is we have a watch notification set up on the Kubernetes API server. We get notifications anytime there's a change in the service membership. So we would know what pods are down, what pods are coming up, so on. So that's, there's an eventual consistency delay in terms of when information propagates, which is why we have, we encourage the health check on ANWI as well. So essentially if you have like a hundred pods here of which 10 of them will become unhealthy and they get unregistered, it might take like a few milliseconds at top self to in order for that information to propagate back to the caller ANWI. At the same time, if this ANWI here is actually doing periodic health checks every millisecond, every 10 milliseconds, that's an example, then it is gonna have first time information about the fact that like all of these hundred pods only these nine get actually alive. And so when it has to make an API call, it would automatically do the load balancing such that it would send it to the remaining 90 pods and not the 10 unhealthy pods. And in the meantime, that information will propagate to Kubernetes and then which will come back to pilot and pilot will actually push the updated concept. Yes sir. It is, well, no, it's localized where each ANWI is polling and like right now it's all to all things where each ANWI is polling, other ANWIs are the dependent. So whatever they're in the load balancer configuration they'll poll all of them and not to keep track. And they're actually working on a different version of the health check API where we have delegation. So we'll actually delegate some ANWIs to be responsible for a bunch of ANWIs so that not avoid the one cross traffic. Okay. So there are a few key concepts that come up with pilot the traffic management aspects of pilot. And one of the first one, the one of the most important ones is label-based routers. So this is something that is not for Kubernetes or mesos or most of the other platforms. The idea here is that, like, you know, you can decide like, okay, so given that this is an example of a route tool that you actually set up very safe from this destination service or traffic going to this destination service and originating from this particular service call. So the take, route, 99% of these requests to pods that have these two labels and route one person to request the pods that have these two labels. So you can actually achieve a version of this using, let's say, deployments in Kubernetes where you can actually do a rolling deployment and you can start like rolling out a new version of a service. The problem there is it's an in-place upgrade. So it's not an active, active configuration. You actually literally go and, sorry, it's not an active passive configuration. You actually go and literally replace a pod in place with newer labels such that when the IP table stuff here on the caller side is actually trying to send requests, it would automatically get statistically load balanced across the pods. The problem there is that if you want to get a 99% you need to have a 100% pod. Whereas in this case, since we control load balancing, this is what I meant by load balancing that's not the bandai system. We get to pick like what percentage of traffic should be sent to pod one versus pod two.  So you get fine-grained control over traffic. And now the thing to remember here is that in this case, service B has like, it's just one single Kubernetes service.  Some of them have the 1.5 and use broad labels and some of them have the v2.0 alpha label. So what we do internally at Pilot is we group pods based on the label clusters and we create like a bunch of pods like, okay, these are pods that share the first two labels and so we create one sort of cluster based on that. A cluster and an unvoiced end. It's not the Kubernetes end. And then we get another set of pod based on, sorry, another cluster based on the other label set. And then we program, we set up the configurations and unvoiced such that whenever traffic has to go to the appropriate, this label set, we will, I'll actually show a full example of this in the next slide. But it is the high level concept, yes. Oh, you mean like from, it's actually on the per pod basis. So from every corner on we will actually have a 99 one split. So yes, but over a span of like a few hundred requests, it will actually be the same thing. So to give you a little bit more detail on this, actually I can't see the next slide. There's one more thing that we actually do, which is the ability to look at the HTTP headers as well. So because the unvoiced proxy at HTTP level, we can actually look at the content of the request and try to route traffic based to the appropriate pods. Now, the way we do this is as follows. I mean, the key to understanding pilot is actually to understand the unvoiced configuration because this is where like everything starts. So if you, how many of you are familiar with engine X configuration or the Google guys or HAProxy or, okay, so most people actually have some idea of engine X configuration. So if you look at an unvoiced configuration, a listener is basically equal to server and engine X. So you define a listener, which is on a particular port and for that listener, you define here are the SSL certificates and so on and so forth. And within each listener, you actually have one or more, what do you call server blocks in engine X. For example, you have a HTTP block, you have a TCP block in exactly the similar fashion, you actually have a HTTP proxy configuration, you have a TCP proxy configuration and probably have like Redis configuration, Mongo configuration, so on. And then the upstream in engine X where you define like here are the different upstream clusters that's equal into a cluster and unvoiced. And that is, so that gives you a high level overview.  You define the load balancing policy, you define the SSL certificates to talk to the upstream clusters and you can define other things like circuit breakers and so on. And then as an engine X, in each upstream, there's a whole bunch of IP addresses which correspond to the pods in the upstream. And so these, like so that's part of the cluster. Now, the dynamic reload part of unvoiced is I mean the configuration load part of unvoiced is that the listeners configuration can actually be loaded by a listener discovery service. I know it's fully named, but it's called listener discovery service that listeners configuration can be dynamically loaded. The whole of unvoiced configurations that's a bit of JSON. It's like one giant JSON and each of these blocks can actually be dynamically loaded by different services. And then the clusters together can actually be loaded with a cluster discovery. And now within each cluster, you have a list of upstream IPs corresponding to individual cluster. That in turn can be loaded by a server discovery. The idea to actually have a cluster discovery service and a server discovery service here is that the information on the list of all upstream nodes for a cluster can change much more frequently and dynamically. Whereas the number of upstream clusters, they don't change that frequently. And similarly, the listeners itself, you don't add and remove 100 different servers every second. Whereas you might do the same thing for like number of upstream IP addresses. And now with the listeners, the hashETP proxy configuration is something that's much more dynamic compared to a standard listener. So that hashETP proxy configuration can actually be loaded by something called a start discovery. Which will dynamically load conditions on which you can match the request, like match based on these hashETP headers and then route to this. Or the traffic split, for example, the traffic that comes to this particular route like slash foo should be split 90, 10 across cluster A and cluster B. This is some configuration. This is configuration that can actually load dynamically with RDS. Is there any question on this? Yes, sir. Yes, I mean, yeah. So this is all like the proxy configuration for like traffic exiting. Yes. Oh, the upstream IP is the target IP. So what about the backend IP addresses that you actually have? Yes, outbound. So now this is the configuration for Anway. Now, if you look at Kubernetes, now that throws a few like complications as well, which is you can have 10 different services listening on the same port. Kubernetes allows you to differentiate based on the domain name of the service and all the services cluster level IP addresses. Now, for hashETP, we can definitely differentiate different upstream services by looking at the host address. HTTP host address, suppose is mandatory and that actually indicates the service that you actually want to reach for TCP. If you look at the cluster IP address with which a service is being reached, you can differentiate what is the destination that it's going to. So you could have three different services on port 5506. And depending on the target IP address to which a particular connection is going to, you can decide to route to the appropriate upstream cluster. Now, but then what happens within a port? How do we capture traffic from within a port and then start routing? Because the, so if you look at it in a different way, what we do is we actually, we can, if we don't have an IP tables based like traffic captioning thing, we could just run an ANVOY and we could make ANVOY listen on all, but all possible ports for other services. But then what happens if the app on that service is listening on port 5506 and is also accessing other services on port 5506, then it starts contending. So then you start actually having like a messy conference. I mean, it's not even possible to do that. So this is where we actually added something called us, like a virtual listener and a real listener. What we do is, is that like, you know, we have one ANVOY, I mean the physical listener actually listening on a particular port. Like it's basically port 5000. So in every port, if you go and check today, you would actually find that there's only one ANVOY on port 5000. There's no ANVOY is not listening on any other port. But what we do is that when we do the traffic redirection with IP tables, the kernel will actually preserve the actual destination to which that connection went. So it's port 5506 with address 1.1.1. That'll actually be preserved. You can actually obtain that information through a special system called with the IOXL or is it a system called by which you can actually obtain what was the original destination to which this connection actually went. So we use that, we obtain that information and then we basically multiplex and see, okay, pass that connection on to one of the virtual listeners. And from there on traffic goes out to get processed in the usual way. So this is actually how we like capture traffic all in one in bulk. And then this is the key behind the whole transfer and processing stuff that happens in S-Tube, capture traffic as it is. And then like, you know, from there we just decide to split it to the appropriate listener. Destination IP. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. So the client sends it, I mean, the client does not even know Anwar is there. It just simply sends it to service b.example.com colon 5506. Traffic gets trapped by IP tables and it gets redirected to port 5000. When it comes to port 5000, Anwar basically like, you know, extracts the actual IP address like, oh, it went to 1.1.1, port 5506. When it looks at port 5506, it passes it on to the listener for 5506. And once it gets into the listener, based on the actual source destination IP address and so on, it gets directed to the appropriate upstream cluster. So all this is happening at the egress from the application where the traffic goes out of the application to other pod. When an Anwar receives connection, it will actually receive connection. Once again, since all traffic coming into the pod is also trapped, it'll again enter port 5000. But at that point, it's a direct pass through to the application in the backend. We don't have to do much of like multiplexing. But yes, for simplicity purposes, the same thing happens on the egress and in response. Yes, yes, 100 is going to different cluster. So it's not on listener basis, it's on a cluster level basis. And I'll actually show in the next slide as to like how that is happening. But so once the connection is received, Anwar basically has like a whole bunch of like, you know, it's random number stuff and decides like, okay, it's gonna go to cluster two or bar and spread traffic across one of the clusters. Yes, yes, yes. No, it does not. Because when traffic leaves Anwar, it is standard IP traffic. It's the original pod and original this thing. Yes, it's still transparent. So the way we do that is like once we receive the traffic and like we hand it off to the proper listener and they do the SSL termination based on like looking at the sand field where the services name is tied to the service account in Kubernetes. That's how we actually do that. Yes, we cannot say if you use then hash in TPS traffic directly from your pod, we treat it as TCP traffic and we just like pass it through. So which is why if you're using Istio or the rate limit in STO is that it's done on the ingress level. So all mixed up functionalities get activated at the ingress level. So essentially like whenever traffic enters an Anwar like from as an ingress traffic, it goes to the mixer and the mixer can decide to do global rate limiting based on like, like signals from all the other Anwais and this is how much traffic this particular service is receiving and then decide to like, drop the traffic or accept the traffic. But that said there's also another form of rate limit I wouldn't say rate limiting but throttling which is the circuit breaker configuration which decides there's gonna be maximum of 1024 concurrent connections going to this specific cluster and a maximum of 1024 request for connection and so on. That is handled by Anwar local. So then when that Anwar, the client side Anwar is making a request, it is not going to allow more than 1024 connections to the upstream cluster which is actually an aggregate of all the connections across all the points. Oh, the global rate limiting is, well, that means it depends on how much of the global rate limit. I think left guys already do that. So yes, there is a scalability issue and which is why things like rate limiting are like, it's more like if you do it if you have the A.K.A. management edge, where you are metering things and you're charging people by like, first million A.K.A. calls is free for the next one million A.K.A. calls is three bucks and so on. So at that point, you'd really want to like, since you're charging money, you dash into it. But within the cluster, yes, there is definitely a scalability problem and there are ways to mitigate that by caching but if you want strong consistency, there's going to be a scalability issue. Okay, with eventual consistency and like, exceeding the rate limits by a small amount, then you can cash, have stale information. Any other question? I don't think, that's it. Oh, that's it. Yes. Yes. Yes, that's not part of this one. Yes, so that's completely different and that's like, it's left to the API management layer which is built on top of the mixer or it's a separate component itself, like bring your own API management tool and that thing that passes traffic into the internal cluster. So if you want to build your own API management stuff, then you build your own set of like tools on top of the mixer, where which is where you would actually impose the global rate limit and the mixer is actually, then you would actually have something like a mixer that sits at the, so this is your ingress controller and this you can imagine that this, all your API management stuff, this will call the mixer and the API management stuff sits at the top of the mixer. What I'm saying, so it's like, so for example, this right, so all traffic enters here and you do your API management on top of the mixer and that rate limit is only applied at the ingress and not at all the unvoiced. Yes, yes. Yeah, all of the headers are just passwords. Like whatever comes in just, yeah, there's nothing that gets stripped. The only thing that gets stripped is probably the X forwarded for headers, the connection upgrade headers because it's like, if it's a WebSocket thing, it passes the upgraded address, but if it's not WebSocket, it strips the upgrade headers. But there's like a few standard proxy specific stuff that every proxy would actually strip. Other than that, everything is a password. There's, you don't have to configure. Logically, yes. Logically, you could actually imagine that like everything that ends up going to the mixer, but then there's a whole bunch of caching involved, such that like, you know, the checks are basically based on a very standard set of attributes, but every request unvoiced tracks like 10 in attributes, passes them to the mixer, the mixer decides yes or no. Yes. Any other questions? If not, I can. Okay. Thank you folks.


The market tends to price in things. It has priced in, it seems like the interest rates going up, it has priced in, the Ukraine stuff going up, and as long as there's no new headline or new catalyst or new pandemic, you should probably just level out, you know, go up down, go up down, go up down, because that's how the market is designed, right? The market is almost designed to screw over the most amount of people possibly.


What's up y'all it's your girl Kenzie here from Layton Sports Guards and I'm repping some personals for Jeffrey H. We've got two orders we combined together here for you Jeffrey. First order was one box and your second order was three so a total of four. 22, 23, Panini, Donress, Optic, Basketball, Hobbies. Good luck. Come on let's see Goldvinyl. Let's see one. I saw Sam hold a Cam Thomas auto. Goldvinyl out of this last night. Then uh it was a rated rookie of Pippin Jr on that Goldvinyl. So they've been coming out. Let's see what we can get here. Good luck. Got a red on the color match Nicola Jovic. Nice one there. That is 15 of 99. Good start, good start. We'll take some low numbered rookies. Hollowly Dominators, Jimmy Buckets off to a hot star with the heat here. Not a bad thing at all. Gold shade on last night. Wow Roy that's awesome. That's a big card. That's a big card. Did it look clean? Thinking about getting a graded? We've got Basketball of John Collins. He's a baller. Hollow, Keldon Johnson. Yeah Chris let me know um what what um product you're looking at. Nembar. We have orange uh SGA to 199. If you do order that that would probably be that would definitely make me full. So let me know and uh I can plan, plan for that one. Looks good at first glance. Nice. Atari e-center lead dominators at B. Hollow, James Wiseman. Hollow, Jay Chantix. Baldwin, Jr. lead dominators. Hollow, James Harden. Lights out. Yokech. Shabari Smith, Jr. We've got Red, Drew Holiday to 99. Carousel Burtz. Walker, Kessler, Raider Rookie. Blue dominators of Damian Lillard. Nice one there. That is 11 of 49. Hollow, Kenneth Lofton, Jr. Raider Rookie. Van Vleet. Jayla Williams, Raider Rookie. Pink Velocity, Moses Moody to 79. Warriors. Otto here, here it is. We've got to 99. A elite series Otto of Bernard King. Nick's throwback Otto there. Raining threes, Donovan Mitchell. Chet on the Raider Rookie base. Hollow, All-Stars, D-Wade, and Ginobli. Kind of a cool uh match up there. Hollow, Julius Randall, Josh Giddy. Solid first box, their job. Box two. Pippin, Jr. CJ McCollum on the Pink Velocity to 79. Moore, Jr. I'm going to talk about John now. Hollow, Demarda Rosen. Hollow, Kominga. Arabia, Silver, uh, Hollow lights out. Trey Young. We spoke that one into existence too.  Ant-Man. We got Gold Vinyl. We got Gold Vinyl, Jeff. Show me Red Rookie. One time for the one time. Not a Red Rookie. Warriors. Oh boy, come on. Andrew Wiggins, Gold Vinyl, one of one. That's sick. Wiggins, one of one, Gold Vinyl. There you go, Jeff. We will take a Gold Vinyl all day. One of one. Congrats on that one, Jeffrey. Get that one in a mag for you. Here, we're just staying hot today on Sunday. Christian Brown. We've got Lime Green, Christian Coloco, Red Rookie. That one is to 149. Right, Chris, me too. I was definitely thinking I was going to be carried out of in. Crazy. Gold Vinyl still, still awesome though, for sure. Nice Daniels. Orange Mellow. There you go, to 199. It's out, Luca. Hollow, Caleb Houston, Red Rookie. Christie, Lime Green, Duncan Robinson, the 149. Here to 10. We've got a Lenny Wilkins. Wow, old school Hawks. Excuse me, that is two out of 10, Lenny Wilkins. Back to back old school Autos. That's cool. Gold Vinyl and Autodetent in the same box. Wow. Johnny Davis. We have a Ben Carroll, the Rookie's Hollow. Nice. What's up, Ryan? Thank you, Perom. Hollow, Devin Vaselle. Hollow, KB, and Kyrie. You got Crown Royale next week, Wednesday. Breaks are already listed for that. Looking for some big kabooms. Let's pull a Gold Palo Kaboom. Wouldn't that be something? Bertons, Yolkich. Yeah, absolutely. Last pack here, box two. We've got Lime Green of the Karusho, 149, and Wiggins. Here, box three. Oh, Anonabee, Jabari Walker, Winning Threes, Lamello. Thank you. One second to read that. Lebron and Luca Hollow. Alec Berks. Is there a specific sport that you collect, Ryan? Thanks for subscribing, GKid. Ooh, Redemption. Give me a sport you're looking for. And Redemption is going to be a Trevor Kiehl's on the Raider Rookie Singers. Nick's Raider Rookie there. Mr. Kiehl's basketball. You're looking for, what'd you say, patches and autos? Wanzo, Diabate. Basketball is one that's a little bit more pricey, you know. For the price point, I mean, it doesn't have any patches in it, but I really like Contender's basketball. I get two autos out of that. You know, you can find on-card autos, low numbered stuff out of that. Let's pack them again, three cards in it. Prism has two autos. That's a little bit pricier. We have a Diallo on the Red, it's a 99. How am I going to do with Diallo? Michonne Holmes. As far as like patches and stuff, I don't think they had it this past year. Will Barton, but Absolute Basketball is a fun one too. I think that's got two autos and two memorabilia or three total hits. Jared Allen on the Pink Velocity, the 79. That's a fun one. That one's fairly inexpensive for the amount of hits that you get. Paulo Franz Wagner. Blake Wesley. Orange Ant-Man to 199. Richardson. We see what we have in stock for basketball. Revolution's a fun one. That's cheaper. That's only $130 a box, but you're not guaranteed any autos out of that. If you don't mind collegiate stuff, you've got prism collegiate draft picks. The hobby box is there, only $100. You get four autographs out of that. Yeah, yeah, it's always fun now and then, for sure. Yeah, I would probably say contenders, prism collegiate draft picks if you don't mind college stuff. Boat Champ Raider Rookie. We've got a Red Ryan Rollins to 99. Tray Murphy or Absolute from some of the past year stuff. Yeah, higher end stuff, of course, you can always look for flawless and immaculate. Ekbaji Raider Rookie. We've got a basketball of Dinwiddie. I got to look and see how much a pal of one of those go for. Obsidian, that's a good one too, KJ. I didn't think about that. Obsidian, yeah. Hollow Garland. Mobamba. Yeah, Obsidian has patches and autos. I don't think we have any Obsidian. That's why I didn't think of that. But those were around $400 a box, I want to say maybe. $354, Pessie. Yeah, basketball is definitely a little bit more pricier when you're looking for more autos. And yeah, right, that was a great one. Yeah, sure thing. Kippin' Jr. With Obsidian though, you only get like seven, six or seven cards a box. Also be mindful of that too. Marcus Smart on the basketball, 740A. I wish they had a City in Color Blast, out of that for basketball, that would be sick. Jabari Smith Jr., reigning threes, Edwards like they do for football. Hollow Elite Dominators, AD. Green Walker Kessler Raider Rookie. We've got Lyme Green, Malcolm Brockton to $149. Yeah, I can type them in chat after this box for you. Yeah, Spectra is good. That's a pricier one though. That's like over $1,000 a box, isn't it? Close to it. Jared Allen Hollow. Red, Danny Green to $99. Hollow Lights Out Jaws. Daniels Chronicles might be a nice one too. Chronicles Basketball. Christy Lights Out Tatum. Chronicles is one of my favorite products. Thank you 4G. The Rookies Keegan Murray. Johnny Davis Lyme Green for Zinks, marketing it. Yeah, for sure. Gordon Hollow. Stargazing Treyway. Still looking for our auto here. Hollow Raider Rookie, Max Christie. Lakers. Locked down a bit. Payton Watson. We've got Orange Justin Holliday to $199. Nice to $99. We've got Ochaic Bajie, Rookie Optics Autograph. There you go, Jeffrey. Nice one there. That was $3 of $99. Parsons Jersey Number. Again, Snowballs. Hollow, Trey Murphy and TJ Warren. Alrighty, Jeffrey. Again, here are your autos. Yeah, the Iqbajie, the Redemption Trevor Keels, the Hollow Rookie's Bankero to $10. Lenny Wilkins, the Bernard King. And then I'm going to get this in a mag for you, the gold vinyl, the Andrew Wiggins. Thanks again. We'll get these right. I'll see you.


Appalachian Wireless proudly brings you unlimited data. Unlimited data is only $80 a month for a single line. Four lines as low as $200. Better service? Bigger savings? That's today's Appalachian Wireless. An East Kentucky network company. Get a speed slow to 25 gigabytes per line to 512 kilobits for phones and tablets. And 15 gigabytes for motors. See store for more details. It's time now for Mountain Music.  The main stage of the Country Music Highland. The collective altogether is probably 17, 18, 19. I don't know without counting them out. People. And it's just always interchanging. People popping in and out. The motive behind that is to always keep the sound, the vibe, the songs fresh. Our sound is very complex. I would say alternative, folky, jazz, fusion rock. I think we all have our own influences and we all can bring that to the table. And then when you bring so many influences to the table, it just meshes up and makes whatever you want to call this. A new sound comes out every day. So I mean, when you take a chance and when you take a risk and putting out something that's different than everybody, it sets you apart. When you sound like everybody else, there's nothing different. You have nothing when it comes to music unless you have story. Story is everything. Even if it's an instrumental, there's story in that. And just experiences, relationships, friendships. If you have story, you have everything. So the song is called Sitting on Top of the World. Seinfeld is the show about nothing and this is the song about everything. It really is. It's a song about trials, the wins, the losses and everything in between.


Once you see Dr. Dre's mega estate in Brentwood, Los Angeles, you may have trouble believing the Compton house he spent his childhood in. To say he's come a long way is an understatement. Not only did Dr. Dre purchase his main mansion for $40 million some years ago, he's also done a major renovation to it, adding on an underground recording studio and more, increasing the property value even further. In this video, we'll be taking a look at Dr. Dre's mega mansion in Brentwood which he purchased from another famous couple, his Calabasas house and more. Andre Romel Young, who we better know as Dr. Dre, is a rapper, songwriter, record producer, entrepreneur, actor and more. He's the founder and CEO of Aftermath Entertainment and Beats Electronics and has quite a few successful business endeavors over the years. Dr. Dre found fame with the influential gangster rap group NWA back in the late 80s and had a successful solo rap career in the early 90s too. Besides his own music career, he's credited with producing and overseeing the careers of some of the biggest artists like Eminem, 50 Cent, Snoop Dogg and many more. He's won many well-deserved awards over the years too, including 6 Grammys, one being producer of the year and Rolling Stone has included him on their list of 100 greatest artists of all time. At the time of this recording, Dr. Dre is 55 years old and has been married to his wife Nicole Young since 1996, which whom he has 6 kids. They live happily in a mansion in Los Angeles which is a far cry from his childhood home. Remember, the small house was even shown in the film Straight Outta Compton, which is where it actually is. Considering Dr. Dre was named the second richest figure in hip hop as of 2018, he has nothing to worry about in terms of money. His current estimated net worth is at about $800 million.  Today we're gonna be taking a look at Dr. Dre's impressive real estate, including his main mansion, the house he bought in Calabasas and more. If you like these videos, make sure you're subscribed and ring that bell to be notified when we post, you can always be up to date. We've also done house tours on the likes of Drake and Tyler Perry and we'll link to some at the end. Follow me on Instagram because I love getting to know you guys. I also read all your comments and I need you to let me know who to do next in the comments down below and whose home you'd like to see. Now let's get into this video. First, we'll take a look at Dr. Dre's main estate which is pretty crazy. Like I said, he bought this place off a famous couple who we actually did a house tour video on recently. None other than Tom Brady and Giselle Bunchin. That couple seems to have a thing for flipping houses and the work they did for this place was no different. They got this mansion custom built from the ground up and designed by architect Richard Landry, paying 11 million for just the land alone back in 2008. It cost an estimated 20 million to construct so it's no surprise that Dr. Dre paid 40 million for the place. In fact, he was able to knock the asking price down from 50 mil so technically it's a steal. Dr. Dre's main estate spans 4 acres of land in the Brentwood area of Los Angeles. Brentwood is a quiet posh neighborhood on the west side of LA, full of tree-lined streets and mega mansions. Some of his neighbors include the likes of Heidi Klum & Seal and Arnold Schwarzenegger. There's a mainstrip with nice restaurants, cafes, and a family-friendly shopping area. The mansion was built to resemble a French country chateau with features like cobblestone pathways outside and architecture to give it a bit of a European vibe. It's a limestone-clad home with reclaimed beam ceilings, salvage tile, and antique doors. Dr. Dre's mansion spanned over 18,000 square feet of living space at the time of purchase and that doesn't include his recent add-on. There were eight beds and nine baths and now probably even more. There are two full wings in this mansion which gives you an idea of how big it is. Upon walking in, there's a double height entryway with stunning marble flooring and a giant chandelier, and the marble theme continues through to the spacious chef's kitchen. His mega mansion has a center hall, great room, dining room, family room, and seven fireplaces. Not to mention the whole house has super high ceilings and a lot of natural light coming in. Some other features inside Dr. Dre's mansion include a wine cellar, library, media room, fully-equipped gym, sauna, covered terraces, and six-car garage. Each room is decorated to perfection and has lots of intricate details and furnishings. Dr.  And the fancy features keep going once you walk outside. On the grounds, there's a koi pond, waterfall, and even a moat complete with a bridge which makes Dr. Dre's home feel something like a castle. Out back you'll find the massive infinity pool and spa with full pool deck and cabana, which is a staple of any mega mansion. Despite how humongous Dr. Dre's mansion is, when previous owners Tom and Giselle built the place they wanted it, eco-friendly. The grounds are irrigated by a grey water system and electricity is supplied via solar panel. The home also has environmentally friendly heating and cooling systems. In 2017, Dr. Dre gave a tour of his home on the HBO documentary The Defiant Ones, and it was clear the mansion was undergoing a huge renovation. Like he said, it's the last place him and his family plan on living, so that's why they're doing it big. Dr. Dre was redoing pretty much the entire home and adding a 10,000 square foot recording studio and music facility underneath the mansion. This would mean that after add-ons, his place would be closer to 30,000 square feet of living space. These days, Dr. Dre's mega mansion in LA would be worth well over 40 mil because of his new additions and renovations, but I doubt it'll be on the market any time soon. Although Dr. Dre has that huge estate in Brentwood that didn't stop the man from acquiring yet another property in Los Angeles. In 2018, it was reported he dropped just under 5 million on a mansion in a gated community of Calabasas, LA, close to where some of the Kardashians and other celebs live. The Mediterranean-inspired mansion was built in 1997 and renovated plenty since. It spans 9,378 square feet of living space with six beds and five baths. I guess with all that room, some of his kids could go live in this house too if they wanted. Walking into the house, he agreed with a double-height entryway and beautiful winding staircase. The formal dining room is directly attached to the front hall and offers views to the yard. There are common living spaces like a large kitchen with another Eden area, multiple family and living rooms, and lower level den with fireplace and full bar. His master suite here is massive with a fireplace TV and large attached ensuite bathroom and walk-in. Dr. Dre can also have a balance of work and pleasure at this home considering it too came equipped with a recording studio and an additional office. Other features of the Calabasas mansion include a games room, home gym, movie theater and much more. The grounds of this property span three-quarters of an acre and have lush gardens and a huge lawn area. Of course, there's a swimming pool and spa as well as a fire pit, built-in barbecue and outdoor dining which is great for entertaining. Not to mention, Dre has a private tennis court too. I'm not quite sure what he's done with this mansion as him and his family live in the Brentwood home full-time but he can certainly afford some nice real estate investments either way. In 2019, just last year, Dr. Dre also sold one of his long-time properties for around 4.5 million, although he was asking over 5 million for it. He maintained this house for a while and bought it more than 20 years ago for about 2.4 million so he still made a buck off the sale. Dr. Dre's previous home was located in a quiet, guard-gated enclave in the hills above LA's Woodland Hills area. Gated estate sat on a bit more than half an acre of land and the mansion itself spans 16,200 square feet of living space spread over three floors. The mansion had eight bedrooms which all had en suites, 13 bathrooms in total and two powder rooms. Not to mention there's an elevator to get you around. There's an impressive winding staircase when you first walk in the home, super high ceilings and fancy marble flooring. The foyer actually looks more like the size of a shopping mall. Of course, there were plenty of formal living and dining rooms as well as a wood-paneled office and Eden family kitchen with another separate chef's kitchen. The family games room in Dr. Dre's previous home had a 150-gallon fish tank that spanned the entire wall. The master suite in this home had dual bathrooms plus a hair and makeup salon or dressing room as well as a sauna, fireplace and sitting area. Dr. Dre added a lot of his amenities throughout the years and the home was full of customized luxury. Other features included a 250-bottle wine cellar, home gym, a bar studio, movie theater and a guest house with a kitchen and more. Its previous home also featured an indoor outdoor floor plan with an indoor hot-to-behind glass doors to showcase the views of the valley. Out back, there was an Olympic-length saltwater swimming pool, patios for lounging and entertaining and a fire pit. Apparently, Dr. Dre's Woodland Hills mansion didn't stay on the market for long, but with all those features, I can see why. Under 5 million actually seems like quite the steal for the place. Alright guys, that's all I could find out where Dr. Dre is calling home these days. Now that we've seen his mega mansions looking mostly at his main family home in Brentwood, Los Angeles, what did you guys think? Aside from the mansion that's now probably worth 40 million and his Calabasas house he purchased for about 5 million, Dr. Dre is also said to own more. It's reported he has a three-bedroom ocean view villa in a gated Pacific Palisades community he bought most recently for 2.25 million. Which one of Dr. Dre's houses was your favorite? I personally love his main mansion. Even looking at it when Tom Brady and his wife Giselle got it built, I thought it was gorgeous. I can only imagine that after Dr. Dre's mega renovation in 2017 the place looks even more impressive. Which I didn't think was possible. Let me know in the comments as well as what other celebrity houses you'd like to see. Follow me on Instagram if you want to chat more and I'll see you all in the next video. Bye.