I just published a blog post about a topic we discussed at the FSFE's last general assembly. Please let me know what you think about it. Looking forward to your feedback.
(The text is also online available under http://k7r.eu/there-is-no-free-software-company-but/. Feel free to share it so we get a wide range of feedback.)
# There is no Free Software company - But!
Since the start of the FSFE 15 years ago, the people involved were certain that companies are a crucial part to reach our goal of software freedom. For many years we have explained to companies – IT as well as non-IT – what benefits they have from Free Software. We encourage individuals and companies to pay for Free Software, as much as we encourage companies to use Free Software in their offers.
While more people demanded Free Software, we also saw more companies claiming something is Free Software or Open Source Software although it is not. This behaviour – also called *"openwashing"* is nothing special for Free Software, some companies also claim something is "organic" or "fair-trade" although it is not. As the attempts to get a trademark for "Open Source" failed, it is difficult to legally prevent companies from calling something "Free Software" or "Open Source Software" although it does neither comply with the Free Software definition by the Free Software Foundation nor with the Open Source definition by the Open Source Initiative.
When the FSFE was founded in 2001 there was already the idea to encourage and support companies making money with Free Software by starting a "GNU business network". One of the stumbling blocks for that was always the definition of a Free Software company. It cannot just be the usage of Free Software or the contribution to Free Software, but also needs to include what rights they are offering their customers. Another factor was whether the revenue stream is tied to proprietary licensing conditions. Would we also allow a small revenue from proprietary software, and how high is that that you can still consider it a Free Software company?
It turned out to be a very complicated issue, and although we were regularly discussing it we did not have an idea how to approach the problems in defining a Free Software company.
During our last meeting of the FSFE's General Assembly we came to the conclusion that there was a flaw in our thinking and that it does not make sense to think about "Free Software companies". In hindsight it might look obvious, but for me the discussion was an eye opener, and I have the feeling that was a huge step for software freedom.
As a side note: When we have the official general assembly of the FSFE we always use this opportunity to have more discussions during the days before or after. Sometimes they focus on internal topics, organisational changes, but often there is brainstorming abut the "hot topics of software freedom" and where the FSFE has to engage in the long run. At this year's meeting, from 7 to 9 October, inspired by Georg Greve's and Nicola Diedrich's input, we spent the whole Saturday thinking about the long term challenges for software freedom with the focus on the private sector.
We talked about the challenges of software freedom presented by economies of scale, networking effects, investment preference, and users making convenience and price based decisions over values – even when they declare themselves value conscious.
One problem preventing a wider spread of software freedom identified there was that Free Software is being undermined by companies that abuse the positive brand recognition of Free Software / Open Source by "openwashing" themselves. Sometimes they offer products that do not even have a Free Software version. This penalises companies and groups that aim to work within the principles of Free Software and damages the recognition of Free Software / Open Source in the market. The consequence is reduced confidence in Free Software, fewer developers working on it, fewer companies providing it, and less Free Software being written in favour of proprietary models.
In the discussion, one question kept arising. Is an activity that is good for Free Software which is done by one small company as their sole activity more valuable than if the same thing were done as part of a larger enterprise? We all agree that a small company which is using and distributing exclusively Free Software, and has done so for many years, and no part of the software they wrote or included was ever non-free software is good. But what happens if said small, focused company got purchased by a larger entity? Does that invalidate the benefit of what is being done?
We concluded that good action remains good action, and that the FSFE should encourage good actions. *So instead of focusing on the company as such we should focus on the activity itself*; we should think about ***"Free Software business activities", "Free Software business offers"***, and such. My feeling was that this was the moment the penny had dropped, while others and me realised the flaw in our previous thinking. We need action oriented approaches and we need to look at activities individually.
There was still the question where to draw the line between acceptable or useful activities and harmful ones. This is not a black and white issue, and when assessing the impact for software freedom there are different levels. For example if you evaluate a sharing platform, you might find out that the core is Free Software, but the sharing module itself is proprietary. This is a bad offer if you want to run a competing sharing platform using Free Software.
The counter example of an acceptable offer was a collaboration software that was useful and complete, but where connecting a proprietary client would itself require a proprietary connector. It was also discussed that sometimes you need to interface with proprietary systems through proprietary libraries that do not allow connecting with Free Software unless one were to first replace the entire API/library itself.
Ultimately a consensus emerged around a focus on the four freedoms of Free Software in relation to the question of whether the software is sufficiently complete and useful to run a competing business.
One thought was to run "test cases" to evaluate how good an offer is on the Free Software scale. Something like a regular bulletin about best and worst practice. We could look at a business activities and study it according to the criteria below, evaluate it, making that evaluation and its conclusions public. That way we can help to build customer awareness about software freedom. Here is a first idea for a scale:
* EXCELLENT: Free Software only and on all levels, no exceptions.
* GOOD: Free Software as a complete, useful, and fully supportable product. Support available for Free Software version.
* ACCEPTABLE: Proprietary interfaces to proprietary systems and applications, especially complex systems that require complex APIs/libraries/SDKs, as long as the above is still met.
* BAD: Essential / important functionality only available proprietary, critical functionality missing from Free Software (one example for an essential functionality was LDAP connector).
* EVIL: Fully proprietary, but claiming to be Free Software / Open Source Software.
**Now I would like to know from you:** what is your first reaction on this? Would you like to add something? Do you have ideas what should be included in a checklist for such a test? Would you be interested to help us to evaluate how good some offers are on such a scale?
To summarise, I believe it was a mistake to think about businesses as a whole before and that if we want to take the next big steps we should think about Free Software business offers / activities – at least until we have a better name for what I described above. We should help companies that they are not deluded by people just claiming something is Free Software, but give them the tools to check themselves.
tldr: A differentation between "fully proprietary" and "fully free" should not only focus on the licensing of parts of the software but also the degree of abidance with the four freedoms in the license.
Dear Matthias,
I am happy to read your post about balancing Free Software ideals and your proposal for a scale of software freedom abidance. I think this is an important discussion.
Your proposal differentiates between kinds of software which has parts of its infrastructure (like the API) licensed with a proprietary license and which not, that is a useful first approach.
What I am missing is a scale of different levels of free/non-free licensing.
I would argue that it makes a difference if a non-free software restricts the access to the source code, or if it restricts the freedom to run.
Moreover it could be useful to differentiate between different kinds of the limitations to run the software. As I discussed earlier [1] a non-commercial restriction can be a tool to safeguard the long-term maintainership of a project, if it is conceived to let some money flow back into the project in case of monetization (even if at the same time it can hinder the adoption of that software on a larger scale).
In regard to limitations of use I would also be happy to see a differentiation between the exclusion of arbitrary groups (like let's say vi-users) or if a limitation of use focuses on the exclusion of use cases which violate fundamental rights (let's say torture).
Best wishes, Daniel
[1] http://culturedigitally.org/2016/04/can-software-be-free-taking-the-case-of-...
Am 15.11.2016 um 18:28 schrieb Matthias Kirschner:
Since the start of the FSFE 15 years ago, the people involved were certain that companies are a crucial part to reach our goal of software freedom. For many years we have explained to companies – IT as well as non-IT – what benefits they have from Free Software. We encourage individuals and companies to pay for Free Software, as much as we encourage companies to use Free Software in their offers.
offering their customers. Another factor was whether the revenue stream is tied to proprietary licensing conditions. Would we also allow a small revenue from proprietary software, and how high is that that you can still consider it a Free Software company?
It turned out to be a very complicated issue, and although we were regularly discussing it we did not have an idea how to approach the problems in defining a Free Software company.
is a first idea for a scale:
EXCELLENT: Free Software only and on all levels, no exceptions.
GOOD: Free Software as a complete, useful, and fully supportable product. Support available for Free Software version.
ACCEPTABLE: Proprietary interfaces to proprietary systems and applications, especially complex systems that require complex APIs/libraries/SDKs, as long as the above is still met.
BAD: Essential / important functionality only available proprietary, critical functionality missing from Free Software (one example for an essential functionality was LDAP connector).
EVIL: Fully proprietary, but claiming to be Free Software / Open Source Software.
**Now I would like to know from you:** what is your first reaction on this? Would you like to add something? Do you have ideas what should be included in a checklist for such a test? Would you be interested to help us to evaluate how good some offers are on such a scale?
To summarise, I believe it was a mistake to think about businesses as a whole before and that if we want to take the next big steps we should think about Free Software business offers / activities – at least until we have a better name for what I described above. We should help companies that they are not deluded by people just claiming something is Free Software, but give them the tools to check themselves.
Dear Daniel,
thanks for your feedback. I have to think a bit more about it, but my gut feeling is that your suggestions will make it more complicated.
* Daniel Guagnin lists.d@guagnin.de [2016-11-17 14:41:46 +0100]:
Moreover it could be useful to differentiate between different kinds of the limitations to run the software. As I discussed earlier [1] a non-commercial restriction can be a tool to safeguard the long-term maintainership of a project, if it is conceived to let some money flow back into the project in case of monetization (even if at the same time it can hinder the adoption of that software on a larger scale).
I have seen it in some places that people switched to non-commercial licenses because of business decisions. In most cases my impression is that those problems can be solved in other ways than to make the software proprietary. Will think a bit more about how the FSFE can explain that better in future.
In regard to limitations of use I would also be happy to see a differentiation between the exclusion of arbitrary groups (like let's say vi-users) or if a limitation of use focuses on the exclusion of use cases which violate fundamental rights (let's say torture).
That can be quite dangerous for Free Software. It would violate one of the core four principles of software freedom. Related to that see: http://k7r.eu/podcast-on-non-military-use-clause-in-gnu-gpl/
Regards, Matthias
El 15 de noviembre de 2016 17:28:30 GMT+00:00, Matthias Kirschner mk@fsfe.org escribió:
I just published a blog post about a topic we discussed at the FSFE's last general assembly. Please let me know what you think about it. Looking forward to your feedback.
(The text is also online available under http://k7r.eu/there-is-no-free-software-company-but/. Feel free to share it so we get a wide range of feedback.)
# There is no Free Software company - But!
Since the start of the FSFE 15 years ago, the people involved were certain that companies are a crucial part to reach our goal of software freedom. For many years we have explained to companies – IT as well as non-IT – what benefits they have from Free Software. We encourage individuals and companies to pay for Free Software, as much as we encourage companies to use Free Software in their offers.
While more people demanded Free Software, we also saw more companies claiming something is Free Software or Open Source Software although it is not. This behaviour – also called *"openwashing"* is nothing special for Free Software, some companies also claim something is "organic" or "fair-trade" although it is not. As the attempts to get a trademark for "Open Source" failed, it is difficult to legally prevent companies from calling something "Free Software" or "Open Source Software" although it does neither comply with the Free Software definition by the Free Software Foundation nor with the Open Source definition by the Open Source Initiative.
When the FSFE was founded in 2001 there was already the idea to encourage and support companies making money with Free Software by starting a "GNU business network". One of the stumbling blocks for that was always the definition of a Free Software company. It cannot just be the usage of Free Software or the contribution to Free Software, but also needs to include what rights they are offering their customers. Another factor was whether the revenue stream is tied to proprietary licensing conditions. Would we also allow a small revenue from proprietary software, and how high is that that you can still consider it a Free Software company?
It turned out to be a very complicated issue, and although we were regularly discussing it we did not have an idea how to approach the problems in defining a Free Software company.
During our last meeting of the FSFE's General Assembly we came to the conclusion that there was a flaw in our thinking and that it does not make sense to think about "Free Software companies". In hindsight it might look obvious, but for me the discussion was an eye opener, and I have the feeling that was a huge step for software freedom.
As a side note: When we have the official general assembly of the FSFE we always use this opportunity to have more discussions during the days before or after. Sometimes they focus on internal topics, organisational changes, but often there is brainstorming abut the "hot topics of software freedom" and where the FSFE has to engage in the long run. At this year's meeting, from 7 to 9 October, inspired by Georg Greve's and Nicola Diedrich's input, we spent the whole Saturday thinking about the long term challenges for software freedom with the focus on the private sector.
We talked about the challenges of software freedom presented by economies of scale, networking effects, investment preference, and users making convenience and price based decisions over values – even when they declare themselves value conscious.
One problem preventing a wider spread of software freedom identified there was that Free Software is being undermined by companies that abuse the positive brand recognition of Free Software / Open Source by "openwashing" themselves. Sometimes they offer products that do not even have a Free Software version. This penalises companies and groups that aim to work within the principles of Free Software and damages the recognition of Free Software / Open Source in the market. The consequence is reduced confidence in Free Software, fewer developers working on it, fewer companies providing it, and less Free Software being written in favour of proprietary models.
In the discussion, one question kept arising. Is an activity that is good for Free Software which is done by one small company as their sole activity more valuable than if the same thing were done as part of a larger enterprise? We all agree that a small company which is using and distributing exclusively Free Software, and has done so for many years, and no part of the software they wrote or included was ever non-free software is good. But what happens if said small, focused company got purchased by a larger entity? Does that invalidate the benefit of what is being done?
We concluded that good action remains good action, and that the FSFE should encourage good actions. *So instead of focusing on the company as such we should focus on the activity itself*; we should think about ***"Free Software business activities", "Free Software business offers"***, and such. My feeling was that this was the moment the penny had dropped, while others and me realised the flaw in our previous thinking. We need action oriented approaches and we need to look at activities individually.
There was still the question where to draw the line between acceptable or useful activities and harmful ones. This is not a black and white issue, and when assessing the impact for software freedom there are different levels. For example if you evaluate a sharing platform, you might find out that the core is Free Software, but the sharing module itself is proprietary. This is a bad offer if you want to run a competing sharing platform using Free Software.
The counter example of an acceptable offer was a collaboration software that was useful and complete, but where connecting a proprietary client would itself require a proprietary connector. It was also discussed that sometimes you need to interface with proprietary systems through proprietary libraries that do not allow connecting with Free Software unless one were to first replace the entire API/library itself.
Ultimately a consensus emerged around a focus on the four freedoms of Free Software in relation to the question of whether the software is sufficiently complete and useful to run a competing business.
One thought was to run "test cases" to evaluate how good an offer is on the Free Software scale. Something like a regular bulletin about best and worst practice. We could look at a business activities and study it according to the criteria below, evaluate it, making that evaluation and its conclusions public. That way we can help to build customer awareness about software freedom. Here is a first idea for a scale:
EXCELLENT: Free Software only and on all levels, no exceptions.
GOOD: Free Software as a complete, useful, and fully supportable
product. Support available for Free Software version.
- ACCEPTABLE: Proprietary interfaces to proprietary systems and
applications, especially complex systems that require complex APIs/libraries/SDKs, as long as the above is still met.
- BAD: Essential / important functionality only available proprietary,
critical functionality missing from Free Software (one example for an essential functionality was LDAP connector).
- EVIL: Fully proprietary, but claiming to be Free Software / Open
Source Software.
**Now I would like to know from you:** what is your first reaction on this? Would you like to add something? Do you have ideas what should be included in a checklist for such a test? Would you be interested to help us to evaluate how good some offers are on such a scale?
To summarise, I believe it was a mistake to think about businesses as a whole before and that if we want to take the next big steps we should think about Free Software business offers / activities – at least until we have a better name for what I described above. We should help companies that they are not deluded by people just claiming something is Free Software, but give them the tools to check themselves.
-- Matthias Kirschner - President - Free Software Foundation Europe Schönhauser Allee 6/7, 10119 Berlin, Germany | t +49-30-27595290 Registered at Amtsgericht Hamburg, VR 17030 | (fsfe.org/donate) Contact (fsfe.org/about/kirschner) - Weblog (k7r.eu/blog.html) _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Hi Matthias,
Sounds good. Where would 'open core' or 'open surface' fall?
-- -- Andres (he/him/his) Ham United Group Richmond Makerlabs
* amunizp a75576@alumni.tecnun.es [2016-11-17 13:57:09 +0000]:
Sounds good. Where would 'open core' or 'open surface' fall?
The idea is to have something more useful than such labels. E.g. a part of the offer could be proprietary because it is a connector to a proprietary software not important for the functionality, and you legally cannot publish it under a Free Software license. That should not be on the same level as important pieces of functionality missing.
Regards, Matthias
On 2016-11-15 18:28, Matthias Kirschner wrote:
EXCELLENT: Free Software only and on all levels, no exceptions.
GOOD: Free Software as a complete, useful, and fully supportable
product. Support available for Free Software version.
The difference between this definition is and "EXCELLENT" is not clear to me.
EXCELLENT excludes something:
no exceptions
And GOOD requires support (shouldn't EXCELLENT also?):
Support available for Free Software version.
The support sentence seems to indicate there may be a free and a not-completely-free version of the same product. But it isn't spelled out explicitly. Thus making it difficult to know where to even start thinking about drawing the line.
- ACCEPTABLE: Proprietary interfaces to proprietary systems and
applications, especially complex systems that require complex APIs/libraries/SDKs, as long as the above is still met.
- BAD: Essential / important functionality only available proprietary,
critical functionality missing from Free Software (one example for an essential functionality was LDAP connector).
One problem that I see with this is: that which is "essential" or "important" depends, for a large part, on how people use the software/service. E.g. what might seem an important feature (just "nice to have") at the beginning of a project may turn out to be one of the most compelling reasons for using it.
- EVIL: Fully proprietary, but claiming to be Free Software / Open
Source Software.
To me this seems to be fraudulent.
I'm thinking about food labelling legislation where there are very clear definitions given for some food stuffs. Just using a label/name that has a legal definition without meeting its criteria is illegal in that case.
Maybe the free software definition would be interesting to try to work with political representatives to get into (local) law too?
Just as an example from food legislation: yoghurt. In Dutch law, if you call a product yoghurt it has to contain _living_ bacteria of the Lactobacillus family. Furthermore there's three categories: skimmed ("magere"), semi-skimmed ("halfvolle"), whole (not-skimmed, "volle"). These have upper and lower bounds on their fat content. Not adhering to these criteria while still labelling it as such makes it illegal to sell these products.
**Now I would like to know from you:** what is your first reaction on this? Would you like to add something? Do you have ideas what should be included in a checklist for such a test? Would you be interested to help us to evaluate how good some offers are on such a scale?
Idea seems good, the criteria as of right now are not clear enough IMO.
To summarise, I believe it was a mistake to think about businesses as a whole before
This sounds a bit like it being counter-productive to judging an entire person as good/evil instead of their behaviour. But at the same time if you start judging behaviour it can give you an overview of how one imperfect company performs when compared to another company. I.e. when done properly you can make more detailed comparisons than perfect/non-perfect company. Which given the large amounts of imperfect companies seems a necessary category to be able to compare within.
and that if we want to take the next big steps we should think about Free Software business offers / activities – at least until we have a better name for what I described above. We should help companies that they are not deluded by people just claiming something is Free Software, but give them the tools to check themselves.
I think people/companies being deluded by other companies to be more likely than by individuals not operating on behalf of a company. (The profit motive seems to be the motivator for conning people about this subject, just like it is for "fair trade", "organic" and a whole lot of other labels people think are good.)
Dear Giel,
* Giel van Schijndel giel@fsfe.org [2016-11-17 15:11:13 +0100]:
The difference between this definition is and "EXCELLENT" is not clear to me.
[...]
Thanks for your feedback on the categories. We will try to make that clearer in the future.
Regards, Matthias
On Tuesday 15. November 2016 18.28.30 Matthias Kirschner wrote:
I just published a blog post about a topic we discussed at the FSFE's last general assembly. Please let me know what you think about it. Looking forward to your feedback.
(The text is also online available under http://k7r.eu/there-is-no-free-software-company-but/. Feel free to share it so we get a wide range of feedback.)
Sorry not to have responded before, but there were some points I was going to make...
[...]
One thought was to run "test cases" to evaluate how good an offer is on the Free Software scale. Something like a regular bulletin about best and worst practice. We could look at a business activities and study it according to the criteria below, evaluate it, making that evaluation and its conclusions public. That way we can help to build customer awareness about software freedom.
This is an interesting idea, but who is going to run all these "test cases"? To an extent, this sounds a bit like there are some people/businesses out there who want to appear at the top of such a scale for promotional purposes, but how can such "testing" be done in a sustainable way and without being compromised by things like sponsorship to cover the effort involved?
[...]
**Now I would like to know from you:** what is your first reaction on this? Would you like to add something? Do you have ideas what should be included in a checklist for such a test? Would you be interested to help us to evaluate how good some offers are on such a scale?
To summarise, I believe it was a mistake to think about businesses as a whole before and that if we want to take the next big steps we should think about Free Software business offers / activities – at least until we have a better name for what I described above. We should help companies that they are not deluded by people just claiming something is Free Software, but give them the tools to check themselves.
I'm not sure how much effort people would spend towards considering whether an individual is a "Free Software person", but one way that businesses might be evaluated in a similar fashion is how they interact with the community. It seems like the suggested scale only refers to the provision of products and services, and for the average customer/user their level of interaction with a company may not go beyond that point, but especially where companies are not the origin of the Free Software concerned, it is very important to consider how (or whether) they cooperate with the people on whose work they are building.
If a company develops Free Software but does so in a "silo", throwing the code over the wall and limiting collaboration opportunities, is that company a good Free Software company?
Paul
Dear Matthias and list,
Op 15-11-16 om 18:28 schreef Matthias Kirschner:
While more people demanded Free Software, we also saw more companies claiming something is Free Software or Open Source Software although it is not. This behaviour – also called *"openwashing"* is nothing special for Free Software, some companies also claim something is "organic" or "fair-trade" although it is not.
In other sectors, labels on websites link to organisations with a list of recognized products and services to prevent abuse.
As the attempts to get a trademark for "Open Source" failed, it is difficult to legally prevent companies from calling something "Free Software" or "Open Source Software" although it does neither comply with the Free Software definition by the Free Software Foundation nor with the Open Source definition by the Open Source Initiative.
On the other hand, the GPL and the LGPL are copyright by FSF, aren't they?
During our last meeting of the FSFE's General Assembly we came to the conclusion that there was a flaw in our thinking and that it does not make sense to think about "Free Software companies". In hindsight it might look obvious, but for me the discussion was an eye opener, and I have the feeling that was a huge step for software freedom.
The consumer pays for product or service. It can be Free Software or not Free Software.
One problem preventing a wider spread of software freedom identified there was that Free Software is being undermined by companies that abuse the positive brand recognition of Free Software / Open Source by "openwashing" themselves. Sometimes they offer products that do not even have a Free Software version. This penalises companies and groups that aim to work within the principles of Free Software and damages the recognition of Free Software / Open Source in the market. The consequence is reduced confidence in Free Software, fewer developers working on it, fewer companies providing it, and less Free Software being written in favour of proprietary models.
Could giving companies the chance to use a recognized label that says the product or service complies with GPL or LGPL, linked back to FSF and FSFE's websites, be helpfull?
One thought was to run "test cases" to evaluate how good an offer is on the Free Software scale. Something like a regular bulletin about best and worst practice. We could look at a business activities and study it according to the criteria below, evaluate it, making that evaluation and its conclusions public. That way we can help to build customer awareness about software freedom. Here is a first idea for a scale:
This is going to cost serious resources.
Best regards,
Dear André,
we discussed labels, but also identified some problems with it. Especially that one entity has to do the work to check. I meanwhile heard there are labels, which work the other way: you sign it, and you remove companies if you find out they violate the principles. But I am not yet sure if that would work in this context.
* André Ockers ao@fsfe.org [2016-12-28 22:09:19 +0100]:
As the attempts to get a trademark for "Open Source" failed, it is difficult to legally prevent companies from calling something "Free Software" or "Open Source Software" although it does neither comply with the Free Software definition by the Free Software Foundation nor with the Open Source definition by the Open Source Initiative.
On the other hand, the GPL and the LGPL are copyright by FSF, aren't they?
Yes, but that does not prevent any company from saying it is "Open Source Software" or "Free Software".
During our last meeting of the FSFE's General Assembly we came to the conclusion that there was a flaw in our thinking and that it does not make sense to think about "Free Software companies". In hindsight it might look obvious, but for me the discussion was an eye opener, and I have the feeling that was a huge step for software freedom.
The consumer pays for product or service. It can be Free Software or not Free Software.
It can also be that a huge part is Free Software, but there is also non-free software offered. Do you need the proprietary part to compete, or not? Does it only effect people who are already locked into another prietary software, or also others? ...
One thought was to run "test cases" to evaluate how good an offer is on the Free Software scale. Something like a regular bulletin about best and worst practice. We could look at a business activities and study it according to the criteria below, evaluate it, making that evaluation and its conclusions public. That way we can help to build customer awareness about software freedom. Here is a first idea for a scale:
This is going to cost serious resources.
Yes, it will -- and we will only be able to do it, if enough people support us. But the thinking was that by doing so, others can learn how to evaluate it themselves. So it is more a knowledge transfer than a "buy whatever we put the label on without thinking yourself".
Best Regards, Matthias