What i'm really curious is, i like what you said about this is not like, there's no we're not going to do, like, lock you down and have a licensing fee that you have to pay forever, because otherwise you're screwed. Maybe this is also like naive take on it, but i feel like that's pretty common in the go spatial worlds, compared to other worlds. If you go to, i'm thinking like music production, for example, or anything related to video, like, it feels like adobe, for example, has this huge grip on people where it's like, you're going to have to pay this forever to get access to these things. They're abit there different fields like that. But it like in geospicia, at least from what i have seen, there's a bunch of companies that are working like that, where there's because there's enough players that are contributing to open source, there's no incentive for you to come as a newcomer and say, aright, we're going to lock you down in a licensing fee and make it that you can never go away. Because if someone comes with that, whatever, customers is going to go to the next company that's building them open sources. Well, first of all, do you feel like your seeing the same thing? And second, why do you think that is the case? If the answer to question one is yes,

sure. A, i think it's a little more nuance than that. A, and, and i don't want to hate on commercial software at all. There are absolutely places for it. But i think that, i think one of the vidios is potentially in this space, a vidios is allso large. But so, for example, take if youyou brought up adobes to take, like photo shock, right? If i'm doing image editing, am it may absolutely be worth it for me, like, say, amd nowike, i'm not trying tohite on open source either. But like, if i'm going to try do my image editing with, like, gimp, verses doing my image editing with photo shop, i am far more productive in photo shop. Like that is just a far more sophisticatedcapability. Like, there are, there are things where it is worth it for me to pay, like, it's just a trade, right? I'm willing to pay money to get more of my time back, or get a more sophisticated set of whatever. And so in that case, but it's o altiate. But it's some point i can say, i'm not using photo shop any more. I'm going whatever. But my images, and i'm everything. I've been working on stills there. I haven't lost my likethe. The cost of moving tooling is like a training cost, but not necessarily a ributi somewhere in that spaceani, i'm over simplifying, cause you've got like, video production, pipe lines and everything else, likei' i'm definitely over simplifying. But i think that in to spatial there's kind of two major factors in my mind that drive this. One is the size of data. It's complex and is a lot of data. And so if i take a, if i pay for something where i am putting data into it, and i have to pay a license in order to keep doing the thing i'm doing, getting back out of that could be cost prohibitive, and now i'm stuck. And and it's, it's a massive amount of it's very, very difficult. It's not just a human, you know, skill set retooling. Am, it's a, it's its could be cost prohibited. And this is something like, for example, we talk about thi at elementary four, we'll have conversations around like vender lock in with cloud providers. Rt, and we have great relationships with cloud providers. I've nothing, i've nothing but great things to say. But there's always a discussion of like vender lockin. Like do you build nativelyon d dyou build to w s services or native azure services, or do you go, like a cubernettes route and everything's generic, and i can move it to any cloud on cloud agnostic and all that kind of stuff? Or on prim i what i feel like isn't talked about quite as much is the data side of it. Like, the reality of it is, if i needed to move this piece of software and needed to re implement it, i could do it like, i mean, it might t not be fast, it might not be cheap, but like, i could do it. If i've got forty a hundred petabites of data in cloud vender a and i need to get out fast, there is not a cheap, fast way to do that. And it could be, cased, prohibitive to move that data back out and put it somewhere else. And so i think that changes the dynamic a little bit when talking about some of the geo spatial stuff of where do i like, how do i where d hedge. And so if you ou began leveraging open sporce solutions for geo spacial, and again, i'm not trying to down play there value, ther you take ezre am o s r i, rightwt, arc j s, there is such a user base out there for arc j s, and there are so many things that it does and does well, i'm not sitting here saying, ng, you shouldn't use it. Like, to know, use the right tool for the job. But when you look at it from a risk perspective, a lot of times the rightt the job might be open source, because you've got to mitigate a set of a set of risks. And then the other piece i would put in kind of the other dimension. Tha's that's like the first part of it. N, the other dimension is that communal part of it, right? Like, i need if i wong to use lancat and sentinel together, if i want to use grace a for water values, and i want to use sar data for land sublimation, if i've got to use these different products, and i want to use some capella sar data for something, and i want to, you some planet optical data for something, whatever. Am i want those all to agree, right? I need those things to all kind o be operating. I ain't to be able to put those products together somewhere, or have a set of tools that can work across all of them. And i think that pushes you back into a community model more so than a proprietary one, because otherwise everybody has to build their

own version of each of these things to work with everybody else.