►
From YouTube: IETF92 - Thursday Lunch Speaker Series
Description
Day: Thursday, March 26, 2015
Time: 1200-1245
Room: Parisian
A
I,
like
all
the
rules
for
being
a
speaker,
it
says
please
inform
the
speaker
to
stay
within
the
pink
box.
Although
I've
been
told,
I
have
a
pass
on
this
one,
no
I'm
not
going
to
do
it.
I
can't
stand
the
box
because
the
laptops
over
here
and
the
boxes
over
there,
you
can
see
the
problem,
and
so
they
moved
the
camera.
So
if
I
go
to
the
pink
box,
I'm
actually
upsetting
the
camera
people.
So
I
can't
do
that
and
I
tend
to
do
this
while
speaking
so
that's
probably
breaking
some
rule.
A
A
A
So
unless
you
you're
not
say
your
name
and
ask
a
question,
you
can
just
say
your
name
as
I've
heard
the
questions
and
I
don't
want
to
be
challenged
that
much
again,
one
last
to
raise
your
hand
if
you
have
a
seat
next
to
you,
there's
people
standing
up
just
see,
there's
lots
of
room.
If
you
all
want
to
roll
on
in
here,
so
I'm,
trying
to
say
y'all
since
we're
in
Dallas,
it's
actually
a
return
to
form
because
I
lived
in
Virginia
for
a
while,
okay
I
think
we
can
get
started.
Yeah
is
this.
A
A
So
if
I'm
doing
this,
it's
not
that
my
necklace
or
although
it
is,
but
I
don't
want
a
massage
okay,
so
hi
I'm,
Chris,
DiBona
I
work
for
Google
have
for
some
time
I'd
like
to
think
we
all
just
basically
do
things
when
Vin
tells
us
to,
and
the
last
time
I
spoke
at
I
ATF
was
I
a
GF
73
in
Minneapolis,
Minnesota
I,
don't
know
how
many
of
you
were
there
in
Minnesota.
You
might
remember
mine
as
being
the
shortest
host
planner
in
the
history
of
the
IETF.
A
It
was
one
min
47
seconds
long
and
some
of
you
came
out
to
me
and
said:
listen
the
problem
with
your
talk,
because
we
didn't
have
enough
time
to
spend
at
the
back
channel
to
slag
on
you.
So
in
an
effort
to
rectify
that
situation.
This
is
we
have
45
minutes
to
abuse
you
to
talk
to
you
and,
although
we'll
have
some
time
at
the
end
for
questions,
if
you'd
like
to
do
any
of
that,
so
first
I
want
to
recap:
my
plenary
talk.
If
my
computer
is
working
I
assure
you
it
is
okay.
A
So
we're
going
to
recap
my
I
ATF
73
talk,
which
I'll
remind
you,
was
women
47
seconds
long,
I,
basically
put
up
this
image
and
I
said:
I
am
NOT
vin
surf
and
thank
to
you
for
existing
when
I
was
when
I
was
putting
together.
This
thing,
I
was
I,
was
trading
a
message
with
one
of
the
organizers
or
it
might
have
been
Denise
and
I
said
I'm
going
to
come
to
eat.
A
Okay,
I'll
come
to
else
we
get
ietf,
they
really
want
me
to
and
it
in
its
spell
checked
in
android
ietf
to
surf,
and
I
was
like
really
I
mean
it's
got
to
be
intentional
right.
So
I'm
gonna
look
into
that,
but
I
thought
I
would
lead
with
a
picture
event
because
we
all
just
like
him
so
very
much,
and
I
did
ask
him
how
much
he
weighed
so
in
case
you
were
wondering,
that's
that's
how
tall
he
is
he's
6
feet
and
one
half
of
an
inch,
not
six
and
a
half
feet.
A
So
standards
again
would
have
been
helpful
here.
Okay
and
what
I
said
was,
and
what
is
still
very
very
true
is.
Why
should
we
will
care
about
the
internet?
Engineering,
Task,
Force,
right,
Google
really
only
exists
because
the
internet
exists,
I,
know,
shocker
and
and
and
the
internet
really
only
exists
because
of
I
ATF
and
groups,
not
as
important
to
like
it.
You
know
making
things
happen
in
a
way
that
doesn't
exclude
people
doing
things
on
the
internet
and
I
know.
A
Now
there
it
wasn't
just
like
how
to
call
people
or
like
a
telephone
book
for
the
IETF.
It
was
like
something
else
I
came
in
late,
so
I
think
it
was,
I
think,
was
about
something
else.
It
wasn't
about
a
phone
book,
there's
a
lot
of
humming,
so
anything
so
the
ITF
is
really
important
to
google.
You
know,
for
obvious
reasons.
A
You
know
we
wouldn't
exist
without
the
internet
we
wouldnt
be
able
to
crawl
the
internet
if
people
didn't
conform
to
certain
standards
and
we
wouldn't
be
able
to
even
fling
packets
around
the
way
we're
used
to.
So
that's
been
hi
Ben
good
to
see
you
there's
there's
some
seats,
there's
a
seat
here
and
there
and
there
there's
there's
like
seats
up
here.
A
Folks,
if
you
want
to
said
see
this
guy
he's
been
raising
his
hand
every
time
I've
asked
like
he
wants
someone
to
sit
next
to
him
and
I:
don't
I,
don't
like
in
this
guy,
he
doesn't
smell.
You
know,
I,
think
you
took
a
shower
right
in
the
last
24
hours
right
or
not,
and
but
he
doesn't
smell
I
assure
you
I
mean
I.
Would
smell,
I,
have
a
very
developed
sense
of
smell,
Jim
and
but
yeah
so,
but
let's
continue
so
obviously
I
look
after
open
source
for
Google
and
what
that
means
at
Google.
A
Okay,
let
me
be
really
clear
about
this.
Is
that
I
don't
control
anything?
No,
no.
It
means
that
whenever
code
comes
into
the
company
and
one
of
our
code
leaves
the
company
myself,
my
group
largely
largely
we're
a
very
large
companies.
So
mistakes
happen,
but
largely
we
make
sure
we.
We
don't
screw
that
up
right,
that
that
the
licenses
are
properly
applied,
that
we
conform
and
pay
attention
to
open
source
licensing
and
and
and
don't
screw
that
up,
because
open
source
is
super
important
to
Google.
We
use
a
ton
of
it.
A
We
release
a
ton
of
it
and-
and
we
see
the
open
source
community,
not
as
something
separate
from
google,
but,
as
you
know,
inherent
in
what
we
do
we
have.
We
employ
a
ton
of
people
whose
entire
existence
is
either.
You
know
working
on,
releasing
or
being
part
of
some
open
source
software
development
community
somewhere
right.
So
so
we
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we
do
that
well
and
do
it
and
do
it
correctly.
A
So
that's
kind
of
my
job
now
in
a
company
the
size
of
google
mistakes
we
made
and
other
people
will
want
to
do
things
and
that's
okay,
and
so
we
just
try
to
make
sure
that
we're
there
for
them.
So
they
know
that
they
can
do
this
sort
of
thing.
Others
a
seat
here
and
see
the
others
to
up
here
in
the
front
row
doma.
A
I
also
look
after
funny
things
that
come
up
like
api
specifications,
less
licensing
and
the
rest
and
and
making
sure
that
they're
released
under
fair
terms
whenever
possible
over
there
there's
I
love.
I
know
you're
not
looking
to
talk
to
me.
If
you
did,
you
would
walk
to
the
role
card
microphones.
So
that's
good,
we'll
take
question
interrupt
any
time
you
want,
but
whatever
not,
that
that
would
ever
happen
I
to
you.
A
Want
to
do
that,
I
wanted
to
talk
about.
Somethings
really
been
bugging
me
over
the
last
and
its
really
been
happening
more
of
the
last
two
or
three
years
and
over
the
last
10
years
and
and
there's
a
huge
interaction
with
the
standards
community
in
this
to
open
source
has
been
extremely
successful.
I
mean
I.
Don't
need
to
to
tell
tell
tell
you
folks
this,
and
so
is
the
internet
right
you've
heard
of
the
Internet
right.
A
So
back
in
1994-95
I
was
I
was
in
a
I
was
in
an
elevator
and
netscape
had
just
gone
public.
I
was
in
an
elevator
washington
DC.
I
was
working
for
a
law
firm
at
the
time
and
they
had
a
burgeoning
and
very
successful
intellectual
property
practice
and
and
and
the
lawyer
he
looks
at
me
he's
like
you're
with
the
IT
department.
B
A
So
you
would
go
to
work.
I
would
go
to
the
bottom
of
the
parking
lot
I
would
park.
My
car
and
I
go
down
a
level
okay,
and
this
is
in
Washington
DC,
so
I'm,
literally
like
seven
storeys
below
the
water
table
and
probably
some
cold
war
bunker,
they
converted
with
pretty
lighting
and
carbon
monoxide
detectors,
and
it's
probably
the
worst
place
for
a
data
center.
Eight
stories
underground,
but
whatever
so
so.
A
I
was
writing
up
the
elevator
to
get
some
sunlight
and-
and
he
says
to
me
you're
one
of
those
IT
guys
right,
I'm,
like
yeah
he's
like
and
I
was
a
kid.
So
I
was
probably
and
he's
like.
Well,
you
saw
that
netscape
on
public.
I
make
sure,
of
course
you
know,
and
he
goes
that's
on
the
internet
right,
not
my
yes
and
he
goes
well.
You
know
I
have
to
tell
you
something:
I'm
really
disappointed
in
tcp/ip.
Oh
well,
why
are
you
disappointed
in
tcp/ip
I?
Think
it's
a
brilliant
protocol.
A
A
And
I'm,
like
it's
one
of
the
moments
you're
like
you
know,
you
want
to
be
respectful
of
your
co-workers,
no
matter
how
stupid
they
are
and
and
and
I
said.
Well,
you
have
to
realize
there
are
plenty
of
protocols
out
there
that
we're
happy
to
charge
you
a
penny
per
packet
or
or
a
tenth
of
a
cent
per
packet
right.
A
We
had
our
essays,
we
had
I
said
the
OSI
stack
because
I
like
making
fun
of
it,
but,
like
you
know
there
are
lots
of
things
that
people
were
happy
to
charge
you
with
charger
charger
will
charge
you
for
and
and
when
they
tried
to
sell
these
things
and
people.
Some
people
doubted
them
sure
and
they
would
show
up
and
playing
some
token
ring
somewhere
and
but
tcp/ip
took
off
for
the
same
reason
the
internet
took
off
right,
you
know,
no
one
was
basically
rent-seeking
and
it
was
a
clever
protocol
right.
A
That
would
do
what
we
wanted
it
to
do,
which
was
the
internet,
connect,
computers
right
so
and
that's
obviously
the
simplification
of
why
tcp/ip
is
awesome,
but
it
was
just
like
one
of
those
moments.
I
was
like
I
shouldn't
work
here
at
this
law
firm.
You
know
like
what
am
I
doing
here
and,
of
course,
we
also
represented
Satan
but
I'm.
Sorry,
it
was
tobacco
and
oil,
but
not
that,
oh
it's
funny.
I
don't
have
a
beef
against
oil,
but
the
tobacco
and
the
anti
Superfund
law
suits,
but
we
won't
go
there.
A
A
So
so
the
thing
is,
though:
it
really
drove
home
even
back
in
the
mid-90s.
It's
like
you
know.
Having
these
open
solutions,
you
open
standards
and
I
wasn't
really
refined
in
the
word
open
source.
We
hadn't
coined
it
yet
or
anything.
You
know,
I
knew
about
the
GPL,
a
new
and
all
that
stuff.
But
you
know
just
the
word:
free
was
so
powerful
back
in
henan
and
just
you
could
download
you
could
you
could
you
could
serve
up
pages
so
easily?
You
didn't
have
to
ask
anyone's
permission.
A
You'd
have
to
go
to
a
vendor
and
in
fact,
if
you
went
to
a
vendor
you
would
be
just
slow
right.
You
could
cut
at
the
time.
You
would
contact
the
the
Sun
Microsystems
of
the
day
and-
and
you
would
say,
hey
I
want
to
make
a
webpage
happen
and
be
like
okay,
we're
going
to
send
over
it
account
executive,
your
granddaddy,
my
client
licenses
and
better
then
I'm
like
actually,
I
already
downloaded
apache
and
I'm
already
serving
stuff,
and
it's
like
it
was
just
so
fast
right.
A
So
so
I
always
felt
that,
like
you
know
the
open
standards
of
the
internet
and
open
source
implementations
of
it,
they
were
hand
in
hand,
and
they
grew
so
fast,
because
no
one
else
could
keep
up
with
them
in
the
commercial
world.
Right
and
that's
that's
again
a
simplification,
but
it
was.
It
was
really
pretty
neat
and
and-
and
we
were
in
a
time
in
the
mid-90s
right
where
everything
had
stopped
working
so
well
write.
It
was
really
boring
right.
B
A
And
it's
funny
too,
because
with
web
browsers,
you
know
I'm
sure
you
all
remember
like
the
long
slog
of
ie6
right
until
until
he
was
like
Ross
and
Ben
gujar,
they
took
Mozilla,
they
stripped
out
all
the
crap
I
mean
it
wasn't
crap.
It
was
just
thick
right.
They
got
rid
of
the
web
designer
the
mail
client,
the
gopher
client,
the
ftp
client
out
of
the
gopher,
was
still
in
there.
The
ftp
client,
all
that
stuff
has
got
rid
of
it
all.
They
added
an
extension
system.
A
They
said
here's
just
like
pure
gecko,
with
basic
bookmarking
and
the
school
extension
system,
and
that
was
Firefox
and
people
are
like
whoa.
What
browsers
can
be
fast
and
cool
and
and
not
give
my
computer
to
whatever
random
weapon
Jeanette
visit,
and
this
is
great
right
and
and
and
at
the
time
you
know,
people
would
go
to
it.
This
is
a
story,
I
verified
they
would
go
to
the
Steve,
Ballmer's
and
and
the
higher-ups
at
Microsoft's
say
you
know
we
need
more
than
10
people
and
ie
and
he's
like
why.
A
Well,
this
Firefox
thing
is
doing
really
well
he's
like.
What's
their
market
share
and
it
was
like
one
percent,
two
percent
they're,
like
he's
like
come
back
in
my
office
when
they
hit
nine
percent
they're
like
nine
percent,
and
he
basically
pulled
it
up
his
back
pocket
which
is
near.
Is
it
yeah
and
he's
like
yeah
once
they
hit
nine
percent
I'll
care
again
because
until
then,
what's
the
point
of
wasting
the
money,
it's
like
really,
okay,
so
they
waited
and-
and
you
know,
Firefox
hit
nine
percent.
A
You
know
in
a
couple
of
years
it
took
a
little
while
and
then
they
hired
a
thousand
people
to
were
coming
IE
team
and
it's
like
whenever
we
see
single
vendors
take
control
of
a
given
technology.
It
just
stops.
It
stinks.
You
know,
because
it
makes
it
very
hard
for
independent,
smaller
vendors,
even
other
projects
to
take
hold
and
what
I've
seen
in
my
career
and
open
source
is
that
open
source
projects
will
often
say:
oh
wait,
a
second,
you
know.
Why
aren't
we
doing
this?
A
Let's
do
this
right,
and
so
they
they
come
up
with
the
next
server
software,
the
next
bit
of
operating
system.
That
is
needed
to
compete
against
these
entrenched
interests
and
and
without
the
OSS
pressure,
if
you
will,
other
vendors
have
to
rise
up
and
it's
actually
it's
pretty
rare
right,
vendors
kind
of
like
their
monopolies
right.
B
A
A
You
and
in
fact
you've
seen
OSS
projects
get
calcified
right
and
and
stop
innovating
and
or
even
become
insecure
and
then
another
one
will
pop
up
and
they'll
start
fighting
and
it'll
be
better
for
all
of
us
all
of
us
system,
administrators
and
users
and
and
the
rest
you'll
even
see
you
know,
vendors
say
we'll
wait.
A
second
you
know
sendmail
is
is
great,
but
it's
really
hard
to
configure
a
sin.
Ml,
cfos,
right
and
cue
male
was
just
turning
up
and
meanwhile
outlook
and
or
whatever
they
call
their
server
exchange.
A
A
So
so
so
you
see
this
happening
and
it's
actually
really
good
for
computer
science
is
really
good
for
the
computer
industry
and
its
really
good
for
standards
when
people
are
fighting
to
serve
people
better
and
and
when
you
look
at
the
standards
that
come
under
you
know,
say
one
vendor
control
or
you
look
at
things
that
come
under
one
vendors,
like
iron
grip.
It's
always
a
grim
thing,
and,
and
there
was
a
discussion
I
don't
know
if
it
was
at
this
I
ETF,
but
it
was
recent
I
couldn't
remember
or
hers
from
it.
A
Actually,
I
think
it
was
around
the
new
I
triple
e
IPR
policy.
Well,
they're
talking
about
free
and
reasonable
mountain.
You
know
terms
all
this
stuff
and
it's
like,
and
what
it
was
was
qualcomm
was
was
for
it,
so
everyone
was
assuming.
It
was
bad
for
everybody
else,
and
it's
like
well
had
that
happened
right
and
so
in
organizations
that
aren't
the
IETF,
where
they
have
very
controlling
views
of
what
happens
with
the
IP
that
create
that
is
created
in
these
standards
organizations.
You
have
real
problems
with
innovation.
A
A
If
you
look
at,
you
know
whether
it's
something
like
docker
engine
X,
where
you've
got
this
really,
you
know
innovative
prolific,
fast-moving,
open
source
project
and
then
you've
got
a
company
saying
well,
how
do
we
sell
services
or
whatever
around
that
and
so
they're
trying
to
sort
of
serve
both
models
at
the
same
time?
But
it's
it's
I
think
it's
really
good
for
the
internet
when
that
happens,
I
think
it's
really
good
for
humans
when
that
happens
so
because
standards
do
exist
without
open
source.
A
I
think
that
their
best
when
they
have
open
source
implementations
and,
in
fact,
I,
don't
think
that
a
good
standard
can
exist
without
a
good
open
source
implementation,
but
they
certainly
do
all
the
time
if
you
look
in
the
world
of
of
electrical
interfacing,
if
you
look
in
the
world
of
telecom
construction
law,
there's
all
these
standards
that
are
out
there
and
they're,
often
incredibly
locked
down.
You
know,
especially
in
the
in
the
electrical
engineering
space.
A
No
I
mean
you
know
it's,
it's
it's
a
different
approach,
but
when
they
allowed
for
and
I
mean
that
not
in
a
way
that's
like
coming
down
on
the
Chinese
I
mean
I,
love,
I,
don't
know
if
you've
ever
been
have
any
of
you
have
ever
been
to
like
shenzhen
and
the
factories
there
I
it's
incredibly
invigorating,
I
mean
it.
The
air
is
terrible,
but
the
the
the
factories
and
the
stores
and
those
enormous
like
20.
A
Which
are
like
10
by
10
stores,
selling
tablets,
all
running
Android
nowadays,
mind
you
but
tablets
and
phones
and
drones
and
toys,
and
it's
just
it's
amazing,
as
a
computer
scientist
in
somebody
who
picks
up
a
soldering
iron
once
a
year
or
so
it's
an
amazing
place
of
it
and
realize
that
you
know
the
kind
of
innovation
that
happens.
There
is
just
astonishing,
but
I
don't
want
to
digress.
So
if
you
really
look
at
how
standards
organizations
work
and
how
standards
come
about,
oh,
do
you
want
to
say
something
you're
at.
B
B
A
A
Hammer
yeah,
so
if
you
look
at
an
area
where
this
drives
me
crazy,
all
off
I,
don't
know
where
you
want
ended
up
sitting
down
the
thing
that
drives
me
crazy
about,
for
instance,
media
standards
and
codecs
all
right.
These
are
incredibly
locked
down
right
and
yet
they're
often
standardized
right
and
whether
you
call
that
MPEG
la
a
standards,
organization
or
cartel
or
whatever
they
have
standardized.
You
know
mpeg-2
epic,
for
you
know
these
standards
through
those
organizations
that
don't
look
like
iit.
A
For
access
and
the
ability
to
use
these
standards,
and
so
they
set
up
the
cartel
model
around
this
and
what
drives
you
and
what
should
drive
you
crazy,
even
more
so
so,
for
instance,
when
ac3
went
into
the
iso
standard,
iso
was
like
well,
you
know
we
can't
just
call
this
a
standard
and
let
you
go
and
and
charge
fortune
for
these
things.
So
I
so
came
up
with
this.
A
They
downloaded
it.
They
offered
it
as
I
think
was
at
the
time
ffmpeg
or
one
of
those
projects,
and
they
had
offered
a
c3
decoding.
So
the
lawyer,
the
general
counsel
from
Dolby,
called
up
my
general
counsel
at
VA
Linux,
because
we
were
hosting
the
code
on
sourceforge
and
left
this.
You
swear
word
Laden
message
on
her
answering
machine.
She
brings
me
in
her
office
she's,
like
first
of
all,
who's
the
crazy
man
swearing
at
me
and
he
was
famous
for
swearing
at
people
by
the
way
and
then
are
we
actually
in
trouble
here.
A
You
know:
do
we
actually
have
to
care
what
he
says
and
I
was
like?
Well,
let's,
let's
take
a
look
at
the
the
particular
example
and
they
were
calling
it
a
c3.
They
were
offering
software
source
code
and
they
and
they
were
basically
implementing
the
ISO
standards.
So
you
know
I
called
him
back
and
I
left
a
message
with
very
little
swear
words
on
his
mess
machine.
Saying:
listen!
If
you
didn't
want
to
release
this
information,
you
shouldn't
have
release
it
to
I,
sep,
right
and
future
versions.
Actually,
I,
don't
think
they
did
so
yeah.
A
A
Think
it
was
the
late
70s
I.
Some
of
you
probably
remember
this
way
better
than
I.
Do
not
I'm
not
saying
you're
old
just
for
the
record,
but
but
it
was,
I
think,
was
in
the
late
seventies
that
happen,
and
then
you
saw
this
like
flourishing
of
innovation
right.
You
saw
really
cool
phones,
but,
more
importantly,
you
remember
modems
right.
Do
you
remember
the
modems
that
you
had
to
sock
at
the
stupid?
You
know
receiver
pair
into
because
you
couldn't
plug
it
in
right.
A
So
I
think
that's
that's
a
bad
thing,
and
so
the
question
that
becomes
do
we
need
conflict
to
flourish
in
open
standards
right
does
there
have
to
be
multiple
open
source,
multiple
vendors
fighting
for
us
to
ship
standards
that
people
going
to
actually
flip
and
use
right,
and
I
would
I
would
say
yes
and
and
someone
I
think
it
might
have
been
Jim.
You
mentioned
this
in
the
email
he
sent
me
and
and
I
glommed
onto
this
one
sentence
where
it
was
like.
Do
we
need
he's
like?
A
Is
it
really
an
open
standard
if
it's
just
one
open
source
implementation
that
everyone
is
using
and
and
what
I've
seen
when
this
happens
is
people
say?
Well,
that's
the
standard
and
if
you
look
at
what
WG
the
wat
working
group,
which
does
the
html5
standard,
that's
adopted
by
the
Deputy
Arce,
it's
very
interesting
to
watch
ian
Hickson
I
know
this
is
a
very
thing.
Do
you
should
get
it
yes
go
to
Mike?
Yes,
say
your
name
here
say
your
name.
B
A
Yay
so
we
have
a
war,
but
but
so
so,
if
you
look
at
how
some
of
these
great
standards
show
up
it,
are
they
really
just
transcription
of
some
market
winter?
And
that's
a
very
interesting
question.
I
talk
about
that
in
a
little
bit.
So,
let's,
let's
hop
over
to
where
phones
were
I,
think
I
mentioned
this
in
my
last
longer
talk
at
IETF,
so
I'm
going
to
blow
through
this
pretty
fast.
A
You
know
they
really
they
owned
the
market
and
and
they
were
like
well
what
what
happens
if
we
want
to
be
in
that
market?
What
happens
if
you
want
to
ship
a
web
page
to
a
phone?
You
know
yeah
trail
users
can
reach
it
great
and
that's
neat,
and
they
had
this
really
cool
sort
of
ecosystem.
But
it
was
very
small
because
they
had
trouble
with
distribution,
so
anyways
the
world
that
was
happening.
A
So
if
you
again,
if
you
went
to
these
shenzhen
malls
back
in
2005-2006,
the
iphone
had
just
come
out
and
you
go
up
to
them,
you
say:
hey:
do
you
guys
have
iphones
and
I
should
have
brought
my
iphone
that
I
bought
back?
Then
it
was
pink.
It
was
a
flip
phone
and
it
had
an
apple
on
a
heck
of
it
like
a
sticker
and
and
what
it
was
was
they
were
taking
windows,
ce
e.
A
They
wouldn't
pay
for
windows
mobile,
because
windows
mobile
cost
three
dollars
more
per
copy
than
windows
ce
e,
so
they
take
windows,
ce
e,
which
they
would
sometimes
pay
for
sometimes
on,
but
it
was
like
a
buck
or
two
bucks
per
phone
right
and
they
would
they
had
their
own
dialers
that
they
made
and
they
would
just
slap
him
on
there
and
then
they
had
a
skin.
Then
they
put
an
apple
on
the
bottom
of
and-
and
so
you
know,
they
had
a
hard
time.
A
Obviously
they
couldn't
adopt
apples
software,
these
different,
you
know,
handset
manufacturers
and-
and
so
when,
when
iphone
came
out,
they
came
to
us
and
they're
like
okay.
So
we
liked
your
pitch
for
Android
before,
but
we
really
like
it
now.
So
what
do
you
got
right?
And
so,
when
we
were
thinking
about
Android,
we
knew
we
had
to
compete,
not
just
with
the
existential
threat
that
Apple
posed
to
all
these
companies,
but
we
also
had
to
compete
with
cheaper.
A
So
we
wanted
to
make
android
open
source
from
the
start,
and
so,
if
you
look
at
what
we
open
source
back
then
and
what
we
continue
to
open
source,
it's
basically
like
you,
have
this
Linux
kernel
and
then
you've
got
a
whole
pile
of
apache
code,
which
is
permissibly
license
and
also
has
a
patent
grant
attached.
And
then
you
had
the
Google
specific
services.
On
top
of
that
and-
and
the
point
was
from
the
very
beginning,
I
was
like
listen,
here's
your
were
getting.
You
started
here
right.
A
We
can
all
center
on
the
same
sets
of
drivers,
the
same
sets
of
interfaces
and
we
can
ship
something
that's
open
source
and
the
reason
we
did
the
open
source
was
it's
the
right
way
to
share
software
frankly,
and
also
the
reason
we
did
a
patchy.
It
was
multi-fold
personally,
I
I
really
prefer
Apache.
So
when,
when
we
were
talking
about
how
to
do
this
house
likely,
she
is
Apache,
but
also
we
need
something
that
carriers
frankly
would
understand
and
be
able
to
comply
with
by
default.
A
So
we
wrote
a
lot
of
tooling
so
that
when
you
build
Android,
it's
actually
hard
to
build
something
that
isn't
in
compliance
with
the
Apache
License,
and
then
we
tried
to
train
them
on
the
use
of
the
GPL
kernel
and
try
to
make
sure
those
kernels
were
available
for
at
least
for
the
funds
that
we
personally
shipped
at
Google
and
and
that
was
really
hard
carriers.
Handset
manufacturers
actually
really
bad
at
open-source
compliance
and
and
I.
It's
not
a
malicious
thing.
It's
really
just
it's
hard
for
them.
A
You
know
they
want
to
ship
the
phone
every
stays
they
want
to.
How
do
we?
Where
do
we
mirror
this?
You
know,
so
these
questions
come
up
and
then
the
documentation
requirements
are
very
hard.
So
we
tried
to
create
a
phone
that
they
could
comply
with
very
easily
and
we
were
mostly
successful,
so
that
was
good
yeah.
Let
me
continue
here
so
browsers.
A
I
mentioned
the
nine
percent
story,
that's
all
cool
and
and
Firefox
crew,
for
I
want
to
say
they
hit
twelve
thirteen
percent
before
we
started
seeing
IE
actually
start
being
any
good
again
and-
and
we
were
you
know
at
Google,
we
were
giving
a
lot
of
patches
into
Firefox
at
the
time
and
what
we
wanted
as
we
want
a
javascript
performance
to
improve.
We
wanted
sandboxing
on
a
per
tab
basis.
A
We
wanted
better
security
and
we
were
having
a
harder
and
harder
time
seeing
our
patches
accepted
because
they're
like
whoa
whoa,
oh
the
sandboxing
thing
you
want
to
do.
It's
we're
gonna,
have
to
change
everything
for
that
to
work
and
we're
like
yes,
but
you
need
it.
You
know
anyone's
ever
had
a
tab
take
out
their
entire
browser
knows
that
you
needed
it
and
it
was
hard
for
them
to
prioritize.
A
So
we're
like
okay,
so
we
did
chrome
and-
and
we
really
scrum
under
bsd
license
and
what
we
did
is
we
picked
that
both
because
we
were
basing
it
largely
on
the
cage,
tml
and
and
and
that
work
which
actually
came
out
of
the
Conqueror
browser
was
used
by
Safari.
It
was
worked
on
by
Apple
and
released
his
BSD,
and
then
we
started
really
see
under
BST
as
Wells,
and
our
goal
was
that
the
any
browser
any.
B
A
Could
adopt
our
changes
and
around
sandbox
and
the
Restless?
We
thought
it
was
really
important
for
keeping
the
internet
as
sort
of
a
safe
place
to
serve,
and
we
were
kind
of
successful
with
that.
Chrome
was
very
successful
as
a
browser,
but
I
would
say
we
were
only
moderately
successful,
getting
other
people
to
adopt
what
we
were
doing.
A
lot
of
people
saw
the
light
on
JavaScript
performance,
which
was
great
great
for
everyone
who
is
using
a
browser.
A
You
saw
better
JavaScript
performance
from
from
Apple,
Microsoft,
Mozilla
and,
and
so
I'd
like
to
claim
some
bit
of
that
for
for
our
chrome
folks,
but
we
still
don't
have
great
sand
boxes
across
browsers
and
that's
that's
probably
the
biggest
existential
danger
din
the
internet.
If
there
are
places
that
can
break
through
to
your
machine
through
your
browser,
it's
bad
for
internet
sites,
it's
bad
for
internet
surfing
and
it
drives
more
people
into
the
apps
that
have
become
so
very
popular
on
phones
and
stuff
yeah.
A
So
let
me
so
we
get
to
the
meat
of
the
thing
and
my
problem
is
I'd
love
to
tell
you
that
I
really
understand
the
position
of
open
daylight
versus
other
STM
things.
We
started
funding
sdn
work.
Well,
let
me
take
a
step
back
back
in
2007-2008
broadcom
fabrics,
which
is
we're
not
supported
by
lenox
period,
end
of
story,
and
we
really
needed
it
because
we
were
looking
at
frankly
extremely
costly,
high
densities
which
costs
at
Google.
And
so
we
wanted
to
deploy
switches
that
had
many
thousands
of
ports
and
were
very
fast.
A
But
to
do
so
with
commercial
equipment
I'm,
not
gonna,
say
it
would
bankrupt
us
because
we
were
doing
okay,
but
it
was
gonna,
be
extremely
costly
on
the
orders
of
many
many
many
many
practically
a
thousand
dollars
report,
but
many
hundreds
of
dollars
per
port
and
and
it
it
just
was
untenable.
So
we
wanted
to
have
our
own
switch
fabric.
So
as
early
as
2006,
we
started
working
on
this
kind
of
thing
and
then
broadcom
fabric
support.
You
know
if
we
could
just
get.
That
would
be
great,
so
we
funded
a
lot
of
work.
A
Or
the
the
SDN
future
right
and
and
so
a
lot
of
the
work
that
we
did
there
and
that
we
did
there
is
now
being
standardized,
and
what
does
that
mean
right?
So
is
this
a
real
thing
so
because
I'm
there
there's
number
of
people
from
cisco
and
juniper
here,
I'm
sure-
and
I
don't
want
to
alienate
you
from
the
pulpit
here,
but
a
lot
of
people
see
opendaylight
is
basically
those
organizations
being
like
Qualcomm
on
that
earlier
example.
A
Therefore,
it
should
we
be
worried,
you
know:
are
they
trying
to
squash
this
really
interesting
new
technology,
or
are
they
trying
to
help
it?
Is
it
run
seeking?
Is
it
the
JCP
or
is
it
something
that's
truly
open,
so
I
think
that's
something
that
cisco
and
juniper
probably
need
to
address
if
they
want
people
to
sort
of
sign
on
and
and
the
thing
is,
the
opens,
there's
a
cable
here
that
keeps
stepping
on
I'm
going
to
walk
this
way.
A
A
Yeah.
So
so
I
think
the
IETF
really
has
a
role
in
making
sure
that
sdn
persists
as
something
that
we
can
all
take
advantage
of
and
help
develop
and
move
forward.
So
keep
it
up,
ITF,
okay,
so
the
other
thing
I
want
to
talk
about
and
think
it's
really
been
bugging
me
over
the
last
like
three
or
four
years.
I
mentioned
earlier
in
the
talk
is
that
I
I
always
see
open
source.
Is
this
beautiful
palace
on
a
hill
right?
A
It's
like
it's
such
a
special
thing
for
me,
the
licenses,
the
people
who
work
on
the
software
that's
released
under
these
licenses
and
unfortunately,
over
the
last
really
over
the
last
three
or
four
years
you
started
seeing
people
trying
to
trick
people
like
oh,
no,
we're
open
source
and
you're
like
are
you?
Are
you
really
and
and
I
am
NOT
the
kind
of
person
who
says
that
you
can't
make
money
with
open
source
I'm,
not
that
person
at
all?
A
Anyone
who
knows
me
and
my
my
my
my
thing
for
expensive
shoes
knows:
I
like
Mike,
making
money,
okay,
but
I
was
and
I'm
employed
to
make
sure
that,
through
the
adoption
of
open
source
and
through
the
release
of
open
source,
we're
not
tricking
or
trapping
people.
So
this
is
my
trips
tracks
and
trolls.
A
So,
first
of
all,
in
the
tricks
thing,
there's
people
who
approach
open
source
and
say
yeah
we're
open
source
where
I
came
up
with
something
it's
open
source,
and
you
see
this
actually
a
lot
in
a
non
malicious
way
in
a
benign
way.
People
who
have
the
best
of
intentions,
but
just
don't,
have
the
education.
So,
for
instance,
if
you
go
to
github
today
how
many
of
you
have
downloaded
something
from
github
and
install
it
on
machine
ever
so?
Seventy
percent
of
the
code
on
github
has
an
open-source
licenses.
A
Copyright,
the
author
and
you
shouldn't
have
done
that.
So
why
is
that?
But
if
you
email
them
and
say
hey,
we
really
want
to
use
this
piece
of
code
and
you
and
they
say
well,
yeah,
it's
open
source
is
on
github.
You
say
all
on
a
second
there's:
no
open
source
license
on
this
thing
and
they're
like
oh
well.
Can
you
give
me
a
blurry
cost
and
it's
like
sure
you
know
I
can
give
you
a
license.
A
What
do
you,
which
one
do
you
want
and
so,
honestly,
the
back
foot
this
happens,
play
about
once
a
week
where
I'm
emailing
somebody
saying
hey,
it's
not
really
open
source.
Did
you
mean
it
to
be
and
nine
times
out
of
ten?
They
say
yes,
I
meant
it
to
be
I,
don't
know
which
one
to
use,
though,
and
then
you
ask
them
well,
what's
your
thing?
Do
you
want
people
to
reshare?
Do
you
want
people
just
say
I
got
it
from
you.
What's
your
goal
right
and
they
go?
A
Oh
I,
don't
care
what
they
do
with
it.
I
just
I
love
for
them
to
say
they
got
it
for
me,
I'm
like
oh
well,
then
you
probably
want
to
patch
your
bsd
and
if
they're
a
javascript
person,
I
say
MIT
here
bsd,
so
so,
most
of
the
time
when
people
trick
you
it's
because
they
don't
know
what
they're
doing.
Sometimes,
though
they
know
exactly
what
they're
doing
they
say.
No,
no
I
put
up
on
github
because
I
just
want
to
develop
their
I.
Don't
want
anyone
using
this
code.
A
This
is
my
know,
and
it's
like
okay,
I,
totally
respect
your
desires,
these
other
people
who've
worked
your
code
whatever,
but
we're
cool
now
seriously,
because
the
gib
terms
of
service
are
hilarious.
They
basically
say
by
putting
your
code
up
here,
you're
allowing
people
to
fork
this
code.
However,
you
are
not
conferring
copyright
with
that
for
okay,
yeah.
B
B
A
A
license
picker
and
they
have
this-
choose
your
license-
that
org
thing
that
they
put
together
and
they're.
Actually
they
don't
want
to
be
too
heavy-handed
because
they
want
everyone
to
develop
on
github,
not
just
open
source
developers.
So
so
they've
done
some
things
and
actually
they
used
to
be.
Eighty-Five
percent
of
the
code
was
not
licensed
and
then
they
put
in
the
license
chooser
and
went
to
seventy
percent.
So
that
was
a
move
forward.
Right,
say
your
first
name,
a
monocle.
A
You're
going
to
go
home
and
you're
going
to
pick
a
license
right,
but
ya
know
so
that
this
sort
of
stuff
happens
all
the
time
and
part
of
our
training
at
Google's.
We
say:
listen!
You
want
to
use
this
code.
That's
great
we're
here
to
help
you
sometimes
you
won't
be
able
to,
though
other
times
people
choose
Creative
Commons
licenses.
A
First
of
all,
if
you're
the
creative
commons
fact
they
say
this
is
not
for
software
but
whatever,
and
then
they
pick
the
non-commercial,
no
modification,
you
know
by
you
know,
attribution
version
of
the
license
and
it's
like
really:
that's
not
you're,
not
actually
sharing
software
them.
You
know
you're
you're,
doing
something,
but
and
people
always
think
that
noncommercial
means
something.
A
It's
well
well
noncommercial
we're
not
going
to
make
any
money
from
this
code
and
it's
like
well
we're
a
commercial
organization
and
in
fact,
if
you
look
at
a
lot
of
universities
and
the
way
they're
funded
and
their
labs
and
the
way
the
electro
party
in
the
labs
gets,
gets
sold
and
their
commercial
function
too.
So
you
have
the
situation
where
people
use
licenses
that
are
completely
inappropriate
if
they
actually
want
to
open
source
something.
So
sometimes
they
actually
don't
want
to
open
sourcing,
and
you
should
respect
that.
A
A
I
would
like
to
see
the
GPL
coat
and
I
would
have
to
give
it
to
Jim
and
I
would
want
to
give
it
to
gym,
because
I
made
that
choice.
The
a
GPL
is
a
little
different
if
Jim
visits
a
web
page-
and
it
has
some
a
GPL
content
now
he's
within
his
right
can
I
have
the
code
for
all
the
stuff
on
the
web.
Page.
Oh
and
this
is
going
over
the
network
and
you
guys
have
your
own
network
switches.
Can
I
see
that
code?
A
Oh,
and
this
is
hitting
these
servers,
and
can
we
see
that
code
because
it,
the
virality,
is
through
the
the
network
port.
So
obviously
we
don't
use
this
at
Google,
but
sometimes
people
will
slip
in
because
they
just
by
default,
use
a
GPL
or
GPL
or
whatever,
and
that
can
be
very
tricky
for
people,
but
it
might
be
a
trick.
It
might
be
just
benign
neglect
or
that's
what
they
wanted
right.
So
you
have
to
assume
people
know
what
they're
doing
when
they
pick
these
licenses
other
times.
A
People
say:
oh
we're
using
ffmpeg,
but
it's
lgpl,
so
it's
totally
okay
to
ship
it.
This
way
and
I'm
like
no,
it's
not
it's
GPL,
no,
like
no,
no
see
here's
the
license
its
lgpl
I
was
like.
Did
you
use
this?
Compile
flat?
Look
yeah?
How
did
you
know
I'm
like
because
you're
using
ffmpeg,
everyone
uses
that
compile
talkin
ffmpeg
and
they're
like
oh
well?
What
does
that
do
and
I'm
like
it
makes
a
GPL
because
it
basically
brings
with
it
like
MPEG,
four
and
two
compatibility,
which
everyone
needs
form
FM
peg.
A
So
everyone
compiles
it
that
way,
I
believe
and
yeah.
So
so
sometimes
things
become
a
different
license
because
of
how
they're
configured
and
people
don't
know
how
to
deal
with
this,
they
don't
they
don't
understand,
and
then
they
end
up
breaking
a
license
right,
which
is
really
bad,
because
it's
the
wrong
thing
to
do
and
another
time
you
have
people
who
either
embrace
or
completely
reject
the
or
later
versions
language
in
in
the
GPL
and
the
lgpl,
because
they
either
want
to
reinforce
patent
sharing
and
replace
ability
or
they
want
to
reject
it
right.
A
And
so
there's
all
these
things
that
you
have
to
kind
of
kind
of
look
into
and
understand.
If
you
want
to
ship
a
product
and
then
there's
this
real
question
that
comes
up
I
sort
of
god,
this
is
like
I
could
be
employed
for
the
rest
of
my
life
on
this
sentence
alone.
All
of
you
can.
This
is
a
great
scam
for
jobs.
A
When
is
a
plug-in,
not
a
plugin.
When
is
something
calling
a
system
interface,
when
is
something
calling
an
executable
one.
Is
someone
calling
a
dynamic
library
versus
a
static
library
connection?
When
is
somebody
just
like
you
know,
sending
through
the
network
some
command
that
execute
a
command
that
creates
a
plug?
I
mean,
there's
all
these
questions
that
come
because
a
lot
of
these
licenses,
the
obligations
come
from
linking
right
and
and
linking
is
a-
is
a
very
fluidly
defined
thing
right.
A
You
know
it's
like
if
you're
calling
a
lua
script
in
a
game
that
then
calls
this
thing.
What
happens
and
and
the
thing
is,
there's
actually
very
few
people
who
want
to
reach
beyond
beyond
the
boundaries
of
their
software
right
with
their
licensing
regime
and
the
rest
is
just
too
hard
to
police
and
and
the
rest,
but
it
is
a.
It
is
a
very
interesting
problem,
because
this
is
also
where,
where
charlatans
and
scammers
and
and
malicious
people
find
solace,
they
say
no,
no
I'm,
not
using
the
GPL
that
way
I.
A
I
called
it
via
system
interface,
you
know,
so
it
that's
like
saying.
If
I
run
GCC
windows
is
now
open
source
and
it's
like
you
know,
it's
not
really
what
it
says.
You
know,
and
people
say
things
like
this
all
the
time
to
hide
from
their
obligations
where
they
really
should
have
just
gone
with
a
bsd
thing
in
the
first
place,
anyways
here's
the
text
of
the
the
we're
all
adults
here,
the
f
in
what
WTF
PL
means
is
what
the
public
license
so
do
with
the
you
want
public
license.
B
A
America
in
wipo
signatory
countries,
you
know
that
that
block
of
capital
letters
in
every
license,
so
copyright
is
actually
a
set
of
established
enumerated
rights
for
software,
there's,
seven
of
them
soon,
they'll
be
aight,
but
right
now,
there's
seven
of
them
and
basically
it's
the
the
warranty
of
fitness
all
of
these
things
right
so
without
that
you're
vulnerable,
and
let
me
tell
you
what
you're
vulnerable
to
so.
If
I
say
to
Jim
Jim
I
want
to
use
x11
in
my
nuclear
reactor.
A
Is
it
the
best
implementation
of
a
windowing
system
and
you
go
sure,
it'll
work
great
for
you
and
your
nuclear
reactor.
Now
you
think
I'm
talking
about
new
characters,
I'm,
not
right.
He
just
said
it
was.
It
was
the
right
implementation
for
me
to
use
and
if,
for
some
reason
it
doesn't
work
for
me,
I
can
sue
gym
unless
he
has
a
no
express
warranty
for
fitness
right.
A
If
it,
you
know,
there's
all
kinds
of
things
in
there.
So
you
should
read
that
block
attack
some
time,
but
this
is
missing
that
so
what
this
means
that,
if
you
ship
something
under
the
WTF
PL,
you
can
be
sooo.
People
are
suit
all
the
time
for
this
and
they
lose
if
they
don't
have
that
kind
of
language
and
Stan
stated
in
a
contract
with
you.
So
you,
shipping,
WTF
PL,
is
bad
for
you
personally
and
so
I.
A
Don't
let
any
Googlers
release
under
this
license,
but
we
could
use
stuff
right
because
who
cares
if
they're
vulnerable
right,
there's
a
moral
question,
but
who
cares
if
they're
vulnerable?
If
we
use
our
software,
but
the
problem
is,
if
you
look
at
how
copyright
actually
works,
the
problem
would
do
what
the
you
want.
Is
it's
not
clear
if
it's
I
get
to
do
what
the
I
want
or
what
the
Jim
wanted
by
releasing
it
alright.
So
we
have
this
problem
that
I
get
to
you
just
do
what
the
you
want
to
so
who's,
you
who's.
A
A
A
license
then,
okay
and
the
problem
is
people
say
well,
I,
just
really
sings
under
the
public
domain,
but
I
can
tell
you
something:
we're
in
France,
not
right
now
we're
in
dallas,
which
I
guess
is
very
not
French,
and
but
if
you're
in
France,
you
really
something
I
the
public.
What's
your
name
you're?
What's
your
name
Timo
so
you're,
probably
from
like
Finland
right
or
Norway
yeah,
so
but
you're
in
french
tip
France.
Today,
okay,
so
T
most
cells
me
a
piece
of
software
and
alter
you're
an
artist.
A
So
he
tells
me
a
piece
of
sculpture
and
it's
a
beautiful
sculpture
of
something
that's
very
important
to
his
people
in
France
and
and
then
I
sell
it
to
Jim
for
ten
times
as
much
right,
because
I
want
to
make
money.
So
you
told
to
me
for
a
thousand
dollars.
I
sold
it
to
him.
For
ten
thousand,
you
go.
Hey,
wait!
A
second
where's
my
eye.
That's.
A
A
Sculpture,
freedom
to
a
neo-nazi
and
you
could
stop
the
sale
and
you
know
what,
if
you
would
release
it
on
the
WTF
PL,
you
can
still
stop
the
sale.
If
you
lease
it
out
of
the
public
domain,
you
can
still
stop
the
sale,
so
moral
rights
still
attached
right.
So
there's
all
these
questions
that
come
up
at
this
and,
in
fact,
with
open
source
software
licenses.
A
They
don't
address
moral
rights
at
all,
but
they've
been
around
long
enough
that
the
courts
have
come
to
understand
that
you
can
actually
licensed
your
software
and
moral
rights,
stop
attaching
and
they
can
be
reproduced
and
all
the
rest,
so
open
source
can
persist
in
France,
so
yeah.
So
the
problem
with
these
licenses
is
they're
well-intentioned,
despite
the
potty
mouth
aspect,
they're
very
well-intentioned,
but
we
don't.
B
A
A
I
can
be
a
little
over
because
the
next
one
starts
at
one
o'clock
right:
okay,
I
can
go
fast,
so
clas
you'll
be
asked
to
sign
a
contributor
license
agreement.
If
you
give
code
I'm
going
to
destroy
the
whole
place.
If
you
try
to
give
code
to
the
Free
Software
Foundation
the
Apache
foundation,
a
bunt
to
google,
any
Google
projects
you'll
be
asked
to
sign
a
contributor
license
agreement.
We
base
ours
exactly
on
the
Apache
foundation,
one.
So
that's
good!
For
you
sure
about
software
foundation.
A
You
can
kind
of
trust
the
FSF
to
do
what
they're
going
to
say,
but
there
says
you're
giving
them
an
exclusive
copyright
right,
RSA
you're,
giving
us
a
non-exclusive,
so
you
can
keep
doing
whatever
you
want
with
your
code
and
we're
going
to
release
it
as
open
source
software
right.
It
basically
says
you
have
the
power
to
give
us
that
code,
but
CLA.
Some
of
them
are
really
really
grabby
and
I
would
never
recommend
signing
a
CLA
unless
it
looked
exactly
like
the
Apache
one
like
ours
does.
A
This
becomes
ours
by
the
way
and
there's
like
these
little
trap,
closets
to
be
very
careful
so,
and
these
are
actually
presented
to
people
at
hackathons,
so,
basically
not
all
of
them,
but
probably
about
twenty
percent
of
the
hackathons
out
there
that
you
might
take
part
in
you're
quitting
your
job
by
signing
on
to
them
right,
because
you're,
giving
up
all
of
your
rights
past
present
future
to
the
hackathon
organizers.
So
don't
do
that
license
add-ons.
We
see
patent
clauses
as
early
as
1998.
A
We
saw
people
trying
to
basically
say
here's
a
real-time
Linux
patch
with
Victor
you
Dyke
and
famously
did
this.
But
if
you
use
it,
you're
gonna
be
paying
the
patent
fee,
and
so
they
never
adopted
that
they
adopted
other
real-time
Linux
things,
but
he
still
tried
to
see
based
on
it.
It
was
really
terrible,
crockford
isms,
which
will
go
quickly
into
since
we're
running
out
of
time.
A
They
say
this
offer
will
be
fused
for
good
and
not
evil.
Now
I'd
like
to
think
that
Google
is
not
an
evil
place,
but
my
flavor
of
good
and
evil
is
certainly
different
than
what
Doug
might
say,
and
so
we
gotta
we
gotta
release.
We
don't
have
to
have
this
sentence
in
our
versions
of
jasmine
same
thing
with
IBM,
so
he
goes
around
saying
they
can
be
evil,
but
the
problem
with
these
is
that
a
lot
of
people
used
to
have
add-ons
to
open-source
licenses.
A
That
said
not
to
be
used
by
this
group,
that
group,
you
know
Jewish
people,
non-jewish
people,
abortion,
clinics,
nuclear
power
plants,
militaries,
and
so
we
said
that
that
was
not
okay
in
the
open
source
world,
but
it
sneaks
back
in.
It's
been
sneaking
back
in
lately,
more
often
where
people
try
to
control
who
can
use
the
software
based
on
their
personal
ethics
and
morals,
and
sometimes
those
are
not
always
aligned
with
humanity.
A
Finally,
I
don't
want
to
waste
any
more
time.
I
know
you
have
to
get
to
the
working
groups
really
important,
that
you
do
that
work.
So
there's
a
lot
of
terms
of
services
that
are
terrible
and
patent
clauses
that
are
terrible
so
for
the
web,
M
codex
that
we
released
from
google.
We
added
a
patent
closet
said
here
any
patents
we
have
here
we're
letting
you
have
license
to.
If
you
sue
us
around
these
codecs,
you
don't
have
license
to
them
anymore,
we'll
use
them
in
our
defense.
A
So
it's
literally
very
much
like
the
Apache
License
patent
grant,
but
there
have
been
others
lately
that
have
come
out
that
look
like
this
and
they
say
if
you
should
sue
them,
whether
or
not
it's
related
to
the
software.
You
lose
rights,
it's
like
well,
that's
a
little
extreme,
but
okay,
and
it
says
also
if
you
should,
through
any
lawsuit
assertion
or
other
actions.
So
let
me
ask
you
something:
do
you
think
that
every
patent
ever
filed
is
valid?
A
Just
raise
your
say
if
you
think
that
every
patent
is
valid,
anyone,
okay,
so
every
single
one
of
you
is
now
violated
this
this
clause,
every
single
one
of
you
and
they
can
withdraw
any
sort
of
patent
rights,
and
then
they
can
use
it
to
control
you.
So
this
is
out
there
right
now,
they're
changing
it.
We've
been
talking
with
him.
That's
why
I
put
X's
instead
of
the
company's
name,
because
they
they
really
want
it
to
be
better.
But
this
was
overreaching
right.
A
This
sort
of
thing
happens
and
you
have
to
be
careful,
and
sadly
you
see
a
lot
of
consortiums
that
are
open
standards,
organizations
to
name
only.
You
see
this
in
the
JCP.
You
see
this
in
some
subsets
of
owais
asst
be
careful.
The
presence
of
the
word
open
does
not
help
you
Brian.
We
already
talked
about
open,
daylight
and
I,
really
think
that
Cisco
should
try
very
hard
to
be
truly
open
and
I
think
that
they
can
be
so
I'm
optimistic
and
I'll
just
wrap
and
saying
running
code.
A
Isn't
all
there
is
to
it
it's
code
that
people
have
to
be
able
to
use
without
fear
of
rent-seeking,
and
that
way
the
code
can
be
used
everywhere
on
the
internet
everywhere
on
Earth,
and
that's
that's
the
great
thing
about
the
IETF,
so
just
do
a
great
job,
that's
all
I
would
say,
and
and
and
I'll
lyst
leave
the
rest,
because
I've
already
gone
over
time.
Thank
you
and
I
hope
you
had
a
good
lunch.
So.