Legal matter
We had the idea to demand the handover of a technology, good, or service based on our Ontologic System (OS) to the SOPR when it has gained a market share of more than 66.6%, so to say the evil rule. Another variant of this approach would be to stagger the regulation in accordance with increasing market shares. Articles of Association (AoA)

Digital rights
We noticed that the company Alphabet (Google) wants to change to Domain Name Service (DNS) over HyperText Transfer Protocol Secure (HTTPS) so that internet providers and so on cannot track the traffic anymore.
Indeed, this is reasonable when moving to the

But it creates another huge walled garden besides Google ((Web) Services), Android, and YouTube, which has already become the subject of another complain at the watchdog in the U.S.A..
In addition, we are already discussing the demand for sharing raw data mined and pumped in our ON, OW, and OV respectively in the legal scope of our OS respectively our digital state, also known as OntoLand (OL), which is

A similar development can be seen with

For What It's Worth (FWIW), an allocations battle is going on

despite there will be only an allocation and a commisioning by our SOPR.
commisioning demands sharing of raw data with SOPR

On the basis of such developments and our regulations, we created the idea of an evolution of our License Model (LM) to a data-driven LM.
The new idea is that our SOPR handles (e.g. capturing, mining, and pumping, and also protecting and commercializing) all raw data in our ON, OW, and OV respectively in our digital state, also known as our OntoLand (OL) respectively in our OS. {A member of our SOPR gets the right to handle data and knowledge with our OS in our OS, specifically in our digital state, also known as our OntoLand (OL), in any legal way. But missing is a detailed regulation and limitation between

Interestingy and surprisingly, this approach of a data-driven LM would have as consequences and results

• systems based on the operating system functionality and other functionalities of our Ontologic System Components (OSC), like for example Windows, iOS, Android, and so on,
• Grid, Cloud, and Edge Computing Systems (GCECS), like for example Amazon AWS, Azure, and so on,
• voice-based systems, virtual assistants, and Intelligent Personal Assistants (IPAs), like for example Siri, Alexa, Bixby, and so on,
• etc..

This approach supports

• service quality,

pro bono publico==for the public good.

would disappear and become OS terminal devices or OS terminal points more and more or even go away completely, and companies would not gather external data (user data and societal data) anymore but would buy and also sell data, knowledge, algorithms, and any other kind of digital good on the universal marketplace of our SOPR. :)
...

License Model (LM)
When the evolution of the infrastructure of our SOPR will take place, most potentially starting with the 1st of January 2025, then

Multimodal User Interface (MUI)
We noted the usual individual style guides for things utilized with a MUI and made annoying experiences, also as usual. We have begun to develop a specification for a mandatory MUI style guide as part of the standard designs for OAOS and efforts for interoperability, that has to be (implemented and) provided to a user as option in addition to the individual style guide.

Geographic Information System (GIS)
integration of existing standard technologies (e.g. systems, environments, and platforms), goods (e.g. contents, applications, hardware, devices, and vehicles), and services
...
and other (designated) SOPR members have to hook into the Ontologic uniVerse (OV) platform of our SOPR.
SOPR members can continue with competition on the basis of their individual technologies (e.g. systems, environments, and platforms), goods (e.g. contents, applications, hardware, devices,and vehicles), and services.

Mixed Reality Environment (MRE)
integration of existing standard technologies (e.g. systems, environments, and platforms), goods (e.g. contents, applications, hardware, devices, and vehicles), and services
and other (designated) SOPR members have to hook their

technologie, goods, and services into the related subsystems and platforms of our SOPR as well.
The various OS movements will get the standard functionality.
SOPR members can continue with competition on the basis of their individual technologies (e.g. systems, environments, and platforms), goods (e.g. contents, applications, and devices), and services.

We have our

in general and the

• multi-cloud computing systems,
• dynamic federation systems, and
• service meshing systems,

• online maps and
• virtual globes,

06.October.2019

03:33 UTC+2
What C.S. is not

Throughout the last 13 years C.S. is related to various fictional figures somehow. Despite that aspects exist, which these comparisons do not match, because they are all negative in general, and there are differences:

• has at least some other extraordinary abilities, which some also call superpowers,
• has created own masterpieces of technologies, goods, and services, and
• is so kind to license the utilizations of them.

There is also the relation to a mythical figure somehow. But despite that aspects exist, which this positive comparison does match, it still has a relation to a dystopia:

C.S. has never intended to establish a new religion, but the Ontologic System includes aspects of religions, organizations, etc., and is an Ontological Argument or Ontological Proof in itself.

Personally, one of most interesting observation is that the evolution and the inheritent development and learning are still going on. *<:o)

23:40 UTC+2
Ontonics Further steps

In the last 3 days, we improved foundational components and modules of a type of device in various ways and also developed new models of our own product series. It will be interesting to see if all variants become (parts of) the new industry standard.

Even better, we found another solution for the problem of microplastic, which might be a better alternative or a complement to the approach of filtering the whole water of the planet Earth.

07.October.2019

18:02 UTC+2
Clarification

We found more evidences like for example the

• states U.S.A., Canada, U.K., and Australia, and Sweden, whereby one can guess that the missing Five Eyes member state New Zealand is collaborating somehow as well, as well as
• member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO),

which cannot overcome the gap between DoDAF 1.0 and DoDAF 1.5, like all the other entities cannot bridge the many various gaps, such as for example the

of the entities of the Saarland-Group and Berlin-Group, who still refuse to understand that their

because our Ontologic System (OS) with its

is the whole and only all in one.

Obviously and doubtlessly, a quick look shows for example that

• Softbionics (SB), and
• OntoBot (OB) and OntoScope (OSc),
• etc.,

while the

as can be easily seen on the webpage Overview of the website of our Ontologic Systems OntoLix and OntoLinux.

But in stark contrast our

• is the "Ontologic Foundation or "Formal Ontology Foundation", which "is Key to DoDAF 2's Modeling" and also the NAF, and as such
• includes
  • "Four dimensionalist - xyzt
  • Extensional - physical existence is the criterion for identity
  • Signs and representations are separated form referents
  • Mathematics:
    • Type theory ~ Set Theory
    • Mereology (wholes and parts)
    • 4D Mereotopology (spatio-temporal relations)"

    and

  • "1st order [logic]",

and

• ARIS and AIOS, whereby the latter is merely a plagiarism of what we added to ARIS with our OSA, (see the basic properties of Total Quality Management (TQM) and Computer-Aided Software Engineering (CASE) respectively Operations Management (OM), Quality Management (QM), and Product Lifecycle Management (PLM), as well as the characteristics of (mostly) being collaborative, and look for the other elements of ARIS) as well as
• Core Architecture Data Model (CADM), which
  • is designed to capture DoDAF architecture information in a standardized structure,
• DoDAF Meta-model (DM2), which
  • is a data construct that facilitates reader understanding of the use of data within an architecture document, and
  • is working to replace the CADM
• NASA Exploration Information Ontology Model (NeXIOM), which
  • is "the counterpart to CADM within NASA" and
  • "is intended to be a repository that can be accessed by various simulation tools and models that need to exchange information and data",
• The Open Group Architecture Framework (TOGAF), which includes the architecture domains
  • business architecture,
  • data architecture,
  • applications architecture, and
  • technical architecture,
• Integrated Architecture Framework (IAF),
• SAP Enterprise Architecture Framework (SEAF),
• the rest of DoDAF and NAF, and
• all kinds of other Enterprise Architecture Frameworks (EAFs),

and even does this in the right way beginning with our Zero Ontology or Null Ontology O#.

By the way, C.S.

10.October.2019

08:19 UTC+2
SOPR #236

*** Work in progress - maybe data-driven LM not ready ***
We continue with the discussion about the following two known topics:

Legal matter
We concluded that as long as the

we have to lay out the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Service (ToS) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) accordingly.

Hopefully it is self-explanatory for everybody that we make no gifts or reward no serious criminal behaviors and anti-social conducts in other ways.
Correspondingly, we declare any bargaining powers as void and do not respect them in our discussions, negotiations, and decision makings, if they were built up or gained otherwise by conducting an illegal strategy and method. Prominent examples are

• operating systems,
• Fault-Tolerant, Reliable, and Trustworthy Distributed System (FTRTDS),
• Grid, Cloud, and Edge Computing Systems (GCECS), and
• voice-based systems, chatbots, and virtual assistants, and
• Intelligent Personal Assistants (IPAs),
• New Reality©™ Environments (NREs), as well as
• Cyber-Physical Systems (CPSs), Internet of Things (IoT), and Networked Embedded Systems (NESs),

and

to name just some very few.
But we already explained in former issues that we will consider any expertises and competences gained with attempts to get such bargaining powers when concerning matter related to our

In general, the movements and the design elements discussed in the issue #223 of the 24th of August 2019 in relation to the reproduction and performance of our

are fine.
In particular, we recommend that members of our SOPR focus on the OS access but not on the underlying foundations.
The core principles guarantee more than enough space for the activities of the SOPR members.

The Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Service (ToS) with the License Model (LM) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) already demand the

But due to the reason that redundancy makes no sense in general the AoA and the ToS should also demand the

if advantageous for all SOPR members.

Companies have reacted in destructive ways once again, for example by increasing the borders of existing walled gardens and constructing new ones.
{really right way?} When harmonizing various influences and forces, we concluded that we have no other choice and therefore the only reasonable consequence and viable alternative is the introduction of the data-driven License Model (LM) suggested for the first time in the issue #235 of the 5th of October 2019 (see also the arguments given above once again).
The

solve any issues.

Performance and reproduction of OAOS
We Keep It Simple and Stupid (KISS): Architecture Frameworks (AFs) (see also the Clarification of the 7th of October 2019) are standardized design elements and therefore the related provisions of the AoA and the ToS of our SOPR apply (see issue #223 of the 24th of August 2019).
Please note that we have a more general and flexible approach with our OSA in relation to

12.October.2019

05:14 UTC+2
SOPR #237

*** Work in progress - revision and alignment of issues 226 to 236 ***

The topics of this issue are a little philosophical and correspondingly very fundamental and important.

Cyber sovereignty
In reality the sovereignty of a state does only span over real territory. Correspondingly, in (the domain of) our New Reality© (NR), which includes the

a cyber sovereignty of a state can only span over real territory as well, comparable but only to a very small extent with air rights, because in our New Reality (NR) spacetime respectively space and time, and therefore territory are totally different.
This also raises for example the question if a state owns the data and minds of its citizens. Definitely, the answer is no and everything else would be data slavery.
So far with the philosophy and theory.

Real property vs. virtual and digital property
decrease of royalties under data-driven License Model (LM)
So far so good and crystal clear.
The only questions for us are

Data, knowledge, and algorithm marketplace
Together with competent and eligible members the SOPR is managing and operating a common

Everything means also information, knowledge, and algorithm, whereby an algorithms is viewed as some kind of storage or condensation of knowledge.
In particular, an information, a knowledge base, or an algorithm, which is generated on the basis of raw data handled (e.g. captured, mined, and pumped) in our legal scope, domain, digital space OntoVerse (OV), aka. digital state OntoLand (OL), is commercialzed exclusively on the universal marketplace for everything of our SOPR.
In general, other Electronic Commerce Systems (ECSs) and online marketplace platforms are

of our SOPR.

Data slavery
The matter of cyber sovereignty could also lead to a new form of slavery, which we simply call data slavery in juxtaposition to data democracy.
In this relation, it does not help companies, like for example Sony, to dissociate themselves from slavery, specifically in the new way of data slavery as shown by the governments, industries, including media, and together in their cliques, when they collaborate with companies that do so, like for example Alphabet (Google).

Diverses
We have to apologize for still learning the intentions of others, being slow, and publicating some confusing and repeating matter, because we have to consider newly gained knowledge as well.

14.October.2019

07:15 UTC+2
Investigations::Multimedia, AI and KM

We summarize once again that our Ontologic System (OS) include the

• Artificial Intelligence (AI) and
• Machine Learning (ML),

• OntoBot (OB) and
• OntoScope (OSc),

as well as the

That being said, we have for all functionalities and their integration a Teaching, Suggestion, and Motivation (TSM), which eventually means that the patent is void.

This investigative case is also exemplary for many other patents that we consider as highly problematic or even void. In this relation, we also would like to recall that the related provisions included in the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Service (ToS) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) demands that such a patent is either to

18.October.2019

16:31 UTC+2
SOPR #238

*** Work in progress - better wording, some links missing ***
This issue is about the latest results and developments related to the topics:

Core principles
The original and unique, iconic works of art titled Ontologic System and Ontoscope were created by C.S. as a cybernetic self-reflection, self-image, or self-portrait, but also for the advancement of human kind, specifically freedom and its protection.
Therefore, another core principle included in the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Service (ToS) of our SOPR is that our Ontologic System (OS) and our Ontoscope (Os) are not suitable for

by a state.

Virtual and Digital sovereignty
For a better understanding of the subject matter of virtual and digital sovereignty we give a short summary about the

Cyberspace

We quote, edit, and extend the explanations given in an online encyclopedia about the term cyberspace and a report about the artistic couple named Atelier Cyberspace, which took the website of our Ontologic System OntoLinux as blueprint to mislead the public:

• fifth column of power respectively fourth column of power, because we have an own media platform regulated by the constitution of our OntoLand (OL) and
• the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States Department of Defense (DoD) define cyberspace as one of five interdependent domains, the remaining four being land, air, maritime, and space.", which is taken from our Calibre/Caliber and hence NR and eventually OS, but it did only so in the year 2013.

The regulations related to cyber sovereignty of a nation and included in the AoA have been discussed in the past:

• do respect their cyber sovereignty, for sure, but only in relation to their own citizens on their own soils and not with those foreigners on their soils, who are
  • citizens of other nations and also
  • users of our OS, inhabitants of our Ontologic uniVerse (OV), and members of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR),

  as discussed in relation to our SOPR and regulated by the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Service (ToS) of our SOPR,

• do not think it would be a very great idea to block or even cut any connections with our OS
• [...]."

Also read once again the Comment of the Day of the 11th of August 2019 and 16th of August 2019.

The companies

were taken as blueprints for the overall concept, structure, and organization of our SOPR, but different in several foundational aspects.

As discussed broadly in several issues before {references of issues missing}, the worldwide community has a public interest and a need, and correspondingly demands

The social and legal compromise for opening our OS and Os is

• collection society for the oeuvre of C.S.,
• core principles,
• core principles,
• regulation of social and legal compromise between community and C.S.,
• Supervisor,
• etc.

• sharing of common data, knowledge, as well as algorithms and other depositions of knowledge and wisdom,
• cross licensing of Intellectual Properties (IPs) based on our OS,
• indexing and interfacing of services,
• full access to raw data,
• marketplace system exclusive,
• Everything as a Service (EaaS) platform exclusive,
• etc.

• damage compensation (retroactive for last 3 years, equals common royalties),
• admission fee (retroactive for period starting with due dates and ending 3 years ago, equals single damage compensation respectively common royalties),
• royalties
  • fixed fees,
  • shares of revenue, and
  • extras of revenue or profit.

Virtual and Digital data rights
When continuing the discussion conducted in for example the issue #235 of the 5th of October 2019, we made a comparison with the international mining laws and mining rights, and a transformation of them to

At first, we provide the missing concept formation and taxonomy for easier discussion:

• compressed,
• functional, and
• executable

data storage or knowledge base.

• data,
• knowledge,
• wisdom,
• algorithm,
• software, and
• hardware.

Digital data rights

• exploit,
• capture, mine, and pump, and
• generate or produce

any digital data (digital) or all digital data (digitals) of the owner in particular.

The five elements of a digital data right are to

The owner of a digital interest or digital estate may separately convey any or all of the interests listed above.

Missing are the comparison with and the transformation of the

scope of full access to raw data.

Examples for customary digital properties include

In general,

The demand for full access to raw data is the result of gaining a better insight into and understanding about digital data rights, and reasonable and customary conditions.
The suggestion or introduction of the data-driven License Model (LM) is a reaction on counteraction against the demand for full access to raw data.

In particular, the engineering sector and other industrial sectors have to change much more than only the focus on foundational technology when becoming more the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) sector.
Customary is that a start screen, home screen, and idle screen of an end user device is a part of the digital estate of the operating system manufacturer and because the relevant oss are more or less systems based on the operating system functionality and other functionalities of our Ontologic System Components (OSC), it belongs to the digital estate of our SOPR. Specifically, this means for example that the one or more instrument or gauge screens, start screens, home screens, idle screens of In-Vehicle Infotainment (IVI) systems, and Augmented Reality (AR) windscreens of connected vehicles or Ontoscope on Wheels, Ontoscope with Wings, etc. belong to the digital estate of our SOPR. Car and aircraft manufacturers do not own the screen space of their AR displays, see-through video windscreens, and other displays.
And to continue this example, just saying we will not accept that does not work, because

Federal institutes and authorities or Public and federal duties, tasks, and services
We noticed a massive expansion and utilization of

in the P.R.China, Republic of India, but also in the U.K., and other countries.

According to the AoA and the ToS

We also would like to ask all national governments to introduce a data protection law if not already existent and specific legal frameworks for facial recognition systems and other systems based on sensor data.

Where necessary, private joint ventures have to be transformed into joint ventures established by public and federal institutes and authorities, and state-owned companies as one group of joint partners and our SOPR, Ontonics, and other business units of our corporation as other group of joint partners (see also the issues #215 of the 6th of August 2019 and #226 of the 1st of September 2019).

20.October.2019

08:45 and 16:54 UTC+2
SOPR is neutral and does not tolerate any political interference

Our

• constitution of our digital state OntoLand (OL),
• governance given with the Articles of Association (AoA) of our SOPR, and
• conditions given with the Terms of Service (ToS) of our SOPR.

This is not negotiable.

We highly recomment that governments respect the economical, cultural, and technological sovereignty of C.S. and our SOPR, and therefore comply with the AoA and the ToS of our SOPR or otherwise we have to act in accordance with them, which demand to

Indeed, it is that plain and simple. :)

21.October.2019
Investigations::Multimedia

Now actually if you look at the code submitted you will see that we are using very very little out of the Kernel. Actually for comparison FUSE is using the Kernel much heavier. Utilizing page-cache, Kernel re-claimers. Smart write-back the lot. In ZUFS we take the upper most interfaces and send it down stream as is. Where ever there is depth of stack we take the top most level and push that to server as is completely synchronous to the app threads. [Bingo!!! See for example the related chapters in the documentation of the Systems Programming using Address-spaces and Capabilities for Extensibility (SPACE) approach once again.]

The only real novelty in this project is something completely new to this submission, it is the new [Remote Procedure Call (]RPC[)] we invented here that utilizes per-cpu Technics to show a kind of performance never seen before between two processes. [Bingo!!!]

[...]

Or maybe my sin is that I am to[o] successful? Is the GPL guarded by speed? I mean say FUSE it is already doing all these sins. And or other subsystems that bridge Kernel functionality to user-mode. There are other user-mode "drivers" all over the place. But they are all so slooooooow. So a serious FS or server needs to sit in Kernel. With zufs we can now delegate to user-mode. The kernel becomes a micro-kernel, very-fast-bridge, and moves out of the way. Creating space for serious servers to sit in userland. [Bingo!!!]

[...] I thought, and my philosophy was to take the POSIX interfaces as high as possible and shove them to userland. In an RPC manner that I invented that is very fast. [...] [Bingo!!!]

Best regards
Boaz [Harrosh]"

We think the author is not too successful in camouflaging his infringement of the rights of C.S. and our corporation, but very successful in providing sufficient evidence that shows the required causal link with our original and unique, iconic work of art titled Ontologic System and created by C.S., specifically with its

See also the Clarification of the 4th of June 2018 and the note Preliminary investigation of Linux Foundation continued of the 16th of January 2019 for getting more insight into the masterpiece of C.S..

The company NetApp has to remove the other open source code immediately and stop claiming for the invention and design respectively any activity related to the creation of our Ontologic System (OS).

22.October.2019

11:09 UTC+2
Investigations::Multimedia

*** Work in progress - some better order, wording, and epilog ***

At first, we quote a webpage of an online encyclopedia about the BPF:
"The Berkeley Packet Filter (BPF) is a technology used in certain computer operating systems for programs that need to, among other things, analyze network traffic. It provides a raw interface to data link layers, permitting raw link-layer packets to be sent and received.",
"BPF supports filtering packets, allowing a userspace process to supply a filter program that specifies which packets it wants to receive. For example, a tcpdump process may want to receive only packets that initiate a [Transmission Control Protocol (]TCP[)] connection. BPF returns only packets that pass the filter that the process supplies. This avoids copying unwanted packets from the operating system kernel to the process, greatly improving performance.",
"In 2007, [operating system developers] added zero-copy buffer extensions to the BPF implementation in the FreeBSD operating system,[...] allowing kernel packet capture in the device driver interrupt handler to write directly to user process memory in order to avoid the requirement for two copies for all packet data received via the BPF device. [Sounds familiar? Indeed, it fits with our exception-less system call mechanism somehow, which was stolen before with the related part of the libaio library and io uring library. This match is also the reason why eBPF is so interesting for the Linux anarchists, who still think they have found a legal loophole. But as we will show below that is not, because the problem is that one of the basic properties of our Ontologic System is (mostly) being kernel-less, which means the developers either were too late with their zero-copy buffer extension or have copied this specific feature from our OS, as is the case with the illegal Zero-copy User-mode File System (ZUFS) and all the other attempts to integrate features of Kernel-Less Operating Systems (KLOSs) into the Linux kernel. In this regard we also have to recall once again, that the developers of Linux rejected the microkernel approach all the years before in favour of their monolithic operating system architecture.]", and
"Since version 3.18, the Linux kernel includes an extended BPF virtual machine, termed extended BPF (eBPF). It can be used for non-networking purposes, such as for attaching eBPF programs to various tracepoints.[...] Since kernel version 3.19, eBPF filters can be attached to sockets,[...] and, since kernel version 4.1, to traffic control classifiers for the ingress and egress networking data path. [The Linux kernel version 3.18 was released on the 7th of December 2014, which is between 6 to 8 years after we publicated the original matter.]".
We place on record, that no relevant prior art is presented with newer extensions and versions of the BPF.

We also quote the documentation of a software based on eBFP and referenced in the documentation of BPF in the Linux kernel:
"[] is open source software for transparently securing the network connectivity between application services deployed using Linux container management platforms like [...] Kubernetes [See the investigative cases of the infringing Kubernetes and Google Borg. This also explains once again the interest by the Linux anarchists.]",
"At the foundation of [the open source software] is a new Linux kernel technology called BPF, which enables the dynamic insertion of powerful security visibility and control logic within Linux itself. Because BPF runs inside the Linux kernel, [the open source software] security policies can be applied and updated without any changes to the application code or container configuration. [Somehow this sounds like the property of being reflective.]",
"The development of modern datacenter applications has shifted to a service-oriented architecture often referred to as microservices, wherein a large application is split into small independent services that communicate with each other via APIs using lightweight protocols like HTTP. [See the investigative case of the infringing NetKernel. By the way, Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) and microservices are not the same.]",
"By leveraging Linux BPF, [the open source software] retains the ability to transparently insert security visibility + enforcement, but does so in a way that is based on service / pod / container identity (in contrast to IP address identification in traditional systems) and can filter on application-layer (e.g. HTTP). As a result, [the open source software] not only makes it simple to apply security policies in a highly dynamic environment by decoupling security from addressing, but can also provide stronger security isolation by operating at the HTTP-layer in addition to providing traditional Layer 3 and Layer 4 segmentation. The use of BPF enables [the open source software] to achieve all of this in a way that is highly scalable even for large-scale environments. [Long quote, short comment: We have here some kind of a Distributed operating system (Dos) with a pinch of reflection and many other properties also integrated by our OS before, as is shown in more detail in the following quotes and related comments. Also interesting to note at this point is the fact, that this part of our OS differs fundamently from the also infringing NetKernel, which emphasizes the utilization of the Internet Protocol (IP) address identification, specifically the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI), REpresentational State Transfer (REST) architectural style, and the retrograde World Wide Web (WWW) actually being replaced by our Ontologic Web (OW) together with our Ontologic Net (ON), which is the successor of the Internet, and our Ontologic uniVerse (OV), which is something totally new and the successor of the reality, and correspondingly also called New Reality©™ (NR).]",
"Typical container firewalls secure workloads by filtering on source IP addresses and destination ports. This concept requires the firewalls on all servers to be manipulated whenever a container is started anywhere in the cluster. In order to avoid this situation which limits scale, Cilium assigns a security identity to groups of application containers which share identical security policies. The identity is then associated with all network packets emitted by the application containers, allowing to validate the identity at the receiving node.
"Security identity management is performed using a key-value store. [The problem is that the Berkeley DB (BDB) is an embedded database for key-value data respectively a key-value database or key-value store, the BDB is referenced on the webpage of the OntoFS component, and the in-Kernel Berkeley DataBases (KBDB) are listed in the section Semantic File/Storage System of the webpage L2Sw of the website of OL since 10th of April 2007.]",
"Overlay: Encapsulation-based virtual network spanning all hosts. [A Peer-to-Peer (P2P) network is also an overlay network.]",
"Event monitoring with metadata [This adds more semantics to the monitoring process, which utilized for a better automation of this and other processes.]",
"Distributed load balancing for traffic between application containers and to external services. The load balancing is implemented using BPF using efficient hashtables allowing for almost unlimited scale [...]. [So we have something like Peer-to-Peer (P2P) networking.]",

"A deployment of [the open source software] consists of the following components running on each Linux container node in the container cluster: [] [The open source software] Agent (Daemon): Userspace daemon that interacts with the container runtime and orchestration systems such as Kubernetes via Plugins to setup networking and security for containers running on the local server. Provides an API for configuring network security policies, extracting network visibility data, etc. [] [The open source software] CLI Client: [... ] Linux Kernel BPF: Integrated capability of the Linux kernel to accept compiled bytecode that is run at various hook / trace points within the kernel. [The open source software] compiles BPF programs and has the kernel run them at key points in the network stack to have visibility and control over all network traffic in / out of all containers. [] Container Platform Network Plugin: [...].",
"In addition to these components, [the open source software] also depends on the following components running in the cluster: [] Key-Value Store: [The open source software] shares data between [the open source software] Agents on different nodes via a kvstore. [... ] [The open source software] Operator: [...].",
"[The open source software] agent ([the open source software]-agent) runs on each Linux container host. At a high-level, the agent accepts configuration that describes service-level network security and visibility policies. It then listens to events in the container runtime to learn when containers are started or stopped, and it creates custom BPF programs which the Linux kernel uses to control all network access in / out of those containers. [Note the use of the term "learns".],
"Gathers metadata about each new container that is created. In particular, it queries identity metadata like container / pod labels, which are used to identify Endpoint in [the open source software] security policies. [adds more semantics]",
"Combines its knowledge about container identity and addresses with the already configured security and visibility policies to generate highly efficient BPF programs that are tailored to the network forwarding and security behavior appropriate for each container. [Note the use of the term "knowledge".]",
"Berkeley Packet Filter (BPF) is a Linux kernel bytecode interpreter originally introduced to filter network packets, e.g. tcpdump and socket filters. It has since been extended with additional data structures such as hashtable and arrays as well as additional actions to support packet mangling, forwarding, encapsulation, etc. An in-kernel verifier ensures that BPF programs are safe to run and a JIT compiler converts the bytecode to CPU architecture specific instructions for native execution efficiency. [Together with the capability to "validate the identity" we have the basic property of (mostly) being validated and verified.]",
"To simplify things in a larger deployment, the key-value store can be the same one used by the container orchestrator (e.g., Kubernetes using etcd). [We see here a basic property of the integrating Ontologic System Architecture (OSA).]",
"[The open source software] provides security on multiple levels. Each can be used individually or combined together. Identity based Connectivity Access Control: Connectivity policies between endpoints (Layer 3), e.g. any endpoint with label role=frontend can connect to any endpoint with label role=backend. [] Restriction of accessible ports (Layer 4) for both incoming and outgoing connections [...]. [] Fine grained access control on application protocol level to secure HTTP and remote procedure call (RPC) protocols [...]. [See also the related features of for example the Ontologic File System (OntoFS) and OntoCore (OC components of our Ontologic Systems OntoLix and OntoLinux.]",
"Currently on the roadmap, to be added soon: Authentication: [... ] Encryption: [...].",
"[The open source software] provides seamless integration into Kubernetes. [Kubernetes is based on the cluster management system Borg (see the Clarification of the 1st of December 2018 and the Investigations::Multimedia ofthe 16th of March 2019)]",
"[The open source software] can be deployed along Istio to provide L3-L7 network filtering in complement to Istio's microservice mesh features. [See ...]",
"[The open source software] can be integrated with Apache Mesos and Marathon using the CNI plugin. [In relation to Mesos or Nexus see the Investigations::Multimedia, AI and KM of the 8th of July 2018.],

"BPF is a highly flexible and efficient virtual machine-like construct in the Linux kernel allowing to execute bytecode at various hook points in a safe manner. It is used in a number of Linux kernel subsystems, most prominently networking, tracing and security (e.g. sandboxing).",
"Although BPF exists since 1992, this document covers the extended Berkeley Packet Filter (eBPF) version which has first appeared in Kernel 3.18 and renders the original version which is being referred to as "classic" BPF (cBPF) these days mostly obsolete. [] Nowadays, the Linux kernel runs eBPF only and loaded cBPF bytecode is transparently translated into an eBPF representation in the kernel before program execution. [The Linux kernel version 3.18 was released on the 7th of December 2014, which is between 6 to 8 years after we publicated the original matter.]",
"Even though the name Berkeley Packet Filter hints at a packet filtering specific purpose, the instruction set is generic and flexible enough these days that there are many use cases for BPF apart from networking. [Note that this applies to the extended BPF (eBPF) version but not the classical BPF (cBPF) version.]",
"BPF Architecture [Please do not confuse with OS Architecture.]",
"BPF does not define itself by only providing its instruction set, but also by offering further infrastructure around it such as maps which act as efficient key/value stores [key-value], helper functions to interact with and leverage kernel functionality, tail calls for calling into other BPF programs, security hardening primitives, a pseudo file system for pinning objects (maps, programs), and infrastructure for allowing BPF to be offloaded, for example, to a network card.",
"LLVM provides a BPF back end, so that tools like clang can be used to compile C into a BPF object file, which can then be loaded into the kernel. BPF is deeply tied to the Linux kernel and allows for full programmability without sacrificing native kernel performance.",
"BPF is a general purpose RISC instruction set and was originally designed for the purpose of writing programs in a subset of C which can be compiled into BPF instructions through a compiler back end (e.g. LLVM), so that the kernel can later on map them through an in-kernel JIT compiler into native opcodes for optimal execution performance inside the kernel.",
"Making the kernel programmable without having to cross kernel / user space boundaries. For example, BPF programs related to networking, as in the case of Cilium, can implement flexible container policies, load balancing and other means without having to move packets to user space and back into the kernel. State between BPF programs and kernel / user space can still be shared through maps whenever needed.",
"Given the flexibility of a programmable data path, programs can be heavily optimized for performance also by compiling out features that are not required for the use cases the program solves.",
"In case of networking (e.g. [traffic control (]tc[)] and [eXpress Data Path (]XDP[)]), BPF programs can be updated atomically without having to restart the kernel, system services or containers, and without traffic interruptions. Furthermore, any program state can also be maintained throughout updates via BPF maps.",
"BPF provides a stable ABI towards user space, and does not require any third party kernel modules. BPF is a core part of the Linux kernel that is shipped everywhere, and guarantees that existing BPF programs keep running with newer kernel versions. This guarantee is the same guarantee that the kernel provides for system calls with regard to user space applications.",
"BPF programs work in concert with the kernel, they make use of existing kernel infrastructure (e.g. drivers, netdevices, tunnels, protocol stack, sockets) and tooling (e.g. iproute2) as well as the safety guarantees which the kernel provides. [We always mention the adaption of the device drivers in relation to such attempts. See the section Formal Verification of the webpage Links to Software.]",
"Unlike kernel modules, BPF programs are verified through an in-kernel verifier in order to ensure that they cannot crash the kernel, always terminate, etc. XDP programs, for example, reuse the existing in-kernel drivers and operate on the provided DMA buffers containing the packet frames without exposing them or an entire driver to user space as in other models. Moreover, XDP programs reuse the existing stack instead of bypassing it. [First of all, we have here the verified part of the basic property of (mostly) being validated and verified. Furthermore, we have here our another part of the integration of the various properties by our integrating Ontologic System Architecture (OSA), which adds to the other integrations mentioned in the comments made to the quotes before. Eventually, eBPF has crossed the white, yellow, or red line.]",
"BPF can be considered a generic "glue code" to kernel facilities for crafting programs to solve specific use cases. [As we noted above Virtual Machine (VM), Just In Time (JIT) compiler, kernel scripting and the problem of our integration of Poplog with since the beginning of OntoLix and OntoLinux at the end of October 2006 and Feature List #1 lists the point "'Full Scripting' of the operating system functions" explicitly.]",
"The execution of a BPF program inside the kernel is always event-driven!",
"BPF consists of eleven 64 bit registers with 32 bit subregisters, a program counter and a 512 byte large BPF stack space. [And so on. In the case of an operating system based on a microkernel this makes sense. But in the case of an operating system based on a monolithic kernel we have a Virtual Machine (VM) inside an operating system kernel, with which the VM is directly coupled instead of an integration of the functionality. Tock, tock, tock. Hello, hello! Good morning! Anybody home? Huh? Think, copycat! Think! At this point, we can even see once again that the whole nonsense is at its dead end, but also that the goal with the extension of BPF was to add this functionality of our OntoCore component to the Linux kernel.]",
"The BPF calling convention is generic enough to map directly to x86_64, arm64 and other ABIs, thus all BPF registers map one to one to HW CPU registers, so that a JIT only needs to issue a call instruction, but no additional extra moves for placing function arguments. [At least, there is hope on our side, though it does not matter anyway from the legal point of view, because we already are in OntoLand.]",
"The general operation of BPF is 64 bit to follow the natural model of 64 bit architectures in order to perform pointer arithmetics, pass pointers but also pass 64 bit values into helper functions, and to allow for 64 bit atomic operations. [When we publicated our OS 32 bit was the natural model, which gives us another evidence when the eBPF was created.]",
"[...] the in-kernel BPF verifier will forbid loops so that termination is always guaranteed. Since BPF programs run inside the kernel, the verifier's job is to make sure that these are safe to run, not affecting the system's stability. [Now, we do know why our OS has this basic property.]",
"The Linux kernel is shipped with a BPF interpreter which executes programs assembled in BPF instructions. Even cBPF programs are translated into eBPF programs transparently in the kernel, except for architectures that still ship with a cBPF JIT and have not yet migrated to an eBPF JIT.",
"All BPF handling such as loading of programs into the kernel or creation of BPF maps is managed through a central bpf() system call. It is also used for managing map entries (lookup / update / delete), and making programs as well as maps persistent in the BPF file system through pinning.",
"In case of eBPF, each newly added helper function will be JIT compiled in a transparent and efficient way, meaning that the JIT compiler only needs to emit a call instruction since the register mapping is made in such a way that BPF register assignments already match the underlying architecture's calling convention. This allows for easily extending the core kernel with new helper functionality. [This is the basic property of (mostly) being reflective introduced with eBPF as well.]",
"The aforementioned function signature also allows the verifier to perform type checks. [See Poplog and note that ontologies are utilized for typing so to say]",
"Maps are efficient key/value stores [key-value] that reside in kernel space. [A graphic shows "BPF map (K/V store)", which implies that the BPF file system is like the in-Kernel Berkeley DataBase FileSystem (KBDBFS) listed in the section Semantic File/Storage System of the webpage Links to Software.]",
"BPF maps and programs act as a kernel resource and can only be accessed through file descriptors, backed by anonymous inodes in the kernel.",
"To overcome this limitation, a minimal kernel space BPF file system has been implemented, where BPF map and programs can be pinned to, a process called object pinning.",
"The BPF related file system is not a singleton, it does support multiple mount instances, hard and soft links, etc.",
"JIT compilers speed up execution of the BPF program significantly since they reduce the per instruction cost compared to the interpreter. Often instructions can be mapped 1:1 with native instructions of the underlying architecture. ",
"bpftool is an essential tool around debugging and introspection of BPF programs and maps. It is part of the kernel tree [...].",
"The Linux kernel ships a BPF selftest suite [...]. The test suite contains test cases against the BPF verifier, program tags, various tests against the BPF map interface and map types.",
"The Linux kernel provides various tracepoints around BPF and XDP which can be used for additional introspection, for example, to trace interactions of user space programs with the bpf system call.",
"At the time of this writing, there are eighteen different BPF program types available, two of the main types for networking are further explained in below subsections, namely XDP BPF programs as well as tc BPF programs.",
"At this point in the fast-path the driver just picked up the packet from its receive rings [...]. [This fits with the io uring library. Is not it?]",
"XDP works in concert with the Linux kernel and its infrastructure, meaning the kernel is not bypassed as in various networking frameworks that operate in user space only. Keeping the packet in kernel space has several major advantages: [... ] There is no need for crossing kernel / user space boundaries since the processed packet already resides in the kernel and can therefore flexibly forward packets into other in-kernel entities like namespaces used by containers or the kernel's networking stack itself. [... ] XDP trivially allows for atomically swapping programs during runtime without any network traffic interruption or even kernel / system reboot. [... ] XDP allows for flexible structuring of workloads integrated into the kernel. For example, it can operate in "busy polling" or "interrupt driven" mode.",
"XDP does not require any third party kernel modules or licensing. It is a long-term architectural solution, a core part of the Linux kernel, and developed by the kernel community. [We have not that opinion.]",
"As a framework for running BPF in the driver, XDP additionally ensures that packets are laid out linearly and fit into a single DMA'ed page which is readable and writable by the BPF program.",
"Some of the main use cases for XDP are presented in this subsection. The list is non-exhaustive and given the programmability and efficiency XDP and BPF enables, it can easily be adapted to solve very specific use cases. [For example, to realize more parts of our OS related to Memory Management (MM) and File System (FS).]",
"One example of XDP BPF production usage is Facebook's SHIV and Droplet infrastructure which implement their L4 load-balancing and DDoS countermeasures. Migrating their production infrastructure away from netfilter's IPVS (IP Virtual Server) over to XDP BPF allowed for a 10x speedup compared to their previous IPVS setup. This was first presented at the netdev 2.1 conference: [...] 2017. [So, here is the reason for that aggressive attitude of that company and its trolls, obviously.]",
"Another example is the integration of XDP into Cloudflare's DDoS mitigation pipeline, which originally was using cBPF instead of eBPF for attack signature matching through iptables' xt_bpf module. Due to use of iptables this caused severe performance problems under attack where a user space bypass solution was deemed necessary but came with drawbacks as well such as needing to busy poll the NIC and expensive packet re-injection into the kernel's stack. The migration over to eBPF and XDP combined best of both worlds by having high-performance programmable packet processing directly inside the kernel: [...] [This and the other example shows the significance of our OS for modern computing and networking.]",
"Aside from other program types such as XDP, BPF can also be used out of the kernel's tc (traffic control) layer in the networking data path.",
"Like XDP BPF programs, tc BPF programs can be atomically updated at runtime via cls_bpf without interrupting any network traffic or having to restart services.",
"Some of the main use cases for tc BPF programs are presented in this subsection. Also here, the list is non-exhaustive and given the programmability and efficiency of tc BPF, it can easily be tailored and integrated into orchestration systems in order to solve very specific use cases. While some use cases with XDP may overlap, tc BPF and XDP BPF are mostly complementary to each other and both can also be used at the same time or one over the other depending which is most suitable for a given problem to solve.",
"One application which tc BPF programs are suitable for is to implement policy enforcement, custom firewalling or similar security measures for containers or pods, respectively.",
"Like in XDP case, flow sampling and monitoring can be realized through a high-performance lockless per-CPU memory mapped perf ring buffer [provided from the Linux perf infrastructure] where the BPF program is able to push custom data, the full or truncated packet contents, or both up to a user space application. ",
"Performance Co-Pilot (PCP) is a system performance and analysis framework which is able to collect metrics through a variety of agents as well as analyze collected systems' performance metrics in real-time or by using historical data.",
"Weave Scope is a cloud monitoring tool collecting data about processes, networking connections or other system data by making use of BPF in combination with kprobes.",
"systemd allows for IPv4/v6 accounting as well as implementing network access control for its systemd units based on BPF's cgroup ingress and egress hooks. Accounting is based on packets / bytes, and ACLs can be specified as address prefixes for allow / deny rules. [Oh, see the Investigations::Multimedia of the 16th of March 2019 "As we also noted in the Clarification of the 1st of December 2018, OntoLinux is based on the transformation of the Linux kernel and therefore includes everything of the Linux kernel inclusive containers just right from its start in the end of October 2006 and cgroups since their introduction.".]", and
"Feb 2015, Collaboration Summit, Santa Rosa, BPF: In-kernel Virtual Machine [So it is related to in-kernel database and the other parts of our OS integrated by our OSA.]".

The referenced material is not older than 2014. Much of the referenced material was publicated by a kernel and performance engineer at the company Netflix.
Somehow, we have the impression that a microkernel having basic properties of our OS is implemented in the operating system kernel deliberately. That would be clever, but not clever enough to avoid legal issues.

containerization - problem operating system-level virtualization already included in our Evolutionary operating system (Evoos) (see chapters 2.4 Virtual Machine and 8 Solution Approach of The Proposal), the Linux kernel, and our OntoLinux based on both even before Google's failed attempts with Borg and Kubernetes (see for example the Investigations::Multimedia of the 16th of March 2019)
cloud computing - problem Peer to Peer (P2P) and grid computing 1.0 are referenced with the link to Grid Computing Info Centre (GRID Infoware) in the section Network Technology of the webpage Links to Software since 2006 and cloud computing 1.0 is described in the Feature-Lists #2 with the point "[...] 'Max-Mig' [...] 'Max-Sync' [...] 'Max-Com'" since the and referenced with OpenStack on the webpage Links to Software since the OntoLinux Website update of the 22nd of July 2010

We also quote some messages from the mailing list of the developers of the Linux kernel, specifically the filesystem section:
"This is an important UPDATE to the previous LSF/MM announcement: [...] A BPF track will join the annual LSF/MM Summit this year! Please read the updated description and CFP information below. [...] LSF/MM is an invitation-only technical workshop to map out improvements to the Linux storage, filesystem, memory management, and bpf subsystems that will make their way into the mainline kernel within the coming years. [...] Note that we have extended the original deadline by a week, to accommodate the late arrival of the BPF track. [...] In particular BPF topics are encouraged to be storage, fs, mm, tracing, security related or advancing the state of the art of BPF core. BPF and networking related topics are recommended to be submitted for Linux Plumbers Conference and corresponding Networking and BPF microconf later this year. [Yes, it was sent by Jens Axboe of Facebook.]",
"Well if we are adding BPF to LSF/MM I have to submit a request to discuss BPF for block devices please! There has been quite a bit of activity around the concept of Computational Storage in the past 12 months. SNIA recently formed a Technical Working Group (TWG) and it is expected that this TWG will be making proposals to standards like NVM Express to add APIs for computation elements that reside on or near block devices. [...] I would like to discuss what such a framework could look like for the storage layer and the file-system layer. I'd like to discuss how devices could advertise this capability (a special type of NVMe namespace or SCSI LUN perhaps?) and how the BPF engine could be programmed and then used against block IO. Ideally I'd like to discuss doing this in a vendor-neutral way and develop ideas I can take back to NVMe and the SNIA TWG to help shape how these standard evolve.",
"Definitely interested on this too - and pleasantly surprised to see a BPF track! I would like to extend Stephen's discussion to eBPF running in the block layer directly - both on the kernel VM and offloaded to the accelerator of choice. This would be like XDP on the storage stack, possibly with different entry points.", and
"If we're going down that road, we can also look at the block I/O path itself. Now that Jens' has shown that io_uring can beat SPDK. Let's take it a step further, and create an API, such that we can bypass the boilerplate checking in kernel block I/O path, and go straight to issuing the I/O in the block layer. For example, we could provide an API that allows applications to register a fast path through the kernel - one where checks, such as generic_make_request_checks(), already has been validated. The user-space application registers a BFP program with the kernel, the kernel prechecks the possible I/O patterns and then green-lights all I/Os that goes through that unit. In that way, the checks only have to be done once, instead of every I/O. This approach could work beautifully with direct io and raw devices, and with a bit more work, we can do more complex use-cases as well. [If we are going up the road, then Computer says no(t in this way).]".

There is no loophole. In fact, we have already provided significant and sufficient evidence for showing the required causal link with our OS in relation to eBPF.
While the single developments in relation to the Linux kernel look legal at first sight, a holistic view shows doubtlessly that

The overall strategy is obvious now even for non-expert.
We do not know what the Linux Foundation is trying here, because

and therefore the related parts cannot be given away under a Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) license (see the Clarification of the 19th of December 2018, and ... of the ... once again).

That bold attitude and brute force approach is leading to nowhere but the courts.

Honestly, we are wondering about that social, legal, technological, and economical mess.

We highly recommend the Linux Foundation to begin with

• libaio library,
• io uring library,
• fs-verity,
• virtio-fs,
• ZUFS,
• eBPF,
• and so on

(see also the note FOSHS reached peak long ago of the 17th of December 2018) and

• capability-based,
• microkernel-based,
• kernel-less, and
• distributed,

OntoCore (OC) component, which could be distributed under a license accepted by our SOPR

As Soon As Possible (ASAP) Or Even Better Immediately (OEBI).

23.October.2019

14:58, 16:28, 17:28, 17:36, 18:05, 18:39, 19:14, and 20:24 UTC+2
SOPR #239

*** Proof-reading mode ***
This issue is about actions of our SOPR against serious activities of companies. The related topics are:

Cross licensing
Due to the reasons that the

it is only fair and reasonable to regulate the cross licensing of IPs based on our works and owned by members of our SOPR in a way that reflects the limits of said compromise, for example by introducing the following options suggested by us: The

whereby the SOPR is allowed to cross license at least two property rights without any limitations of the choice and the amount of the cross license fees.

Penalty for illegal FOSS support
Because leading members of Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) projects, organizations, and foundations, like for example the Linux Foundation and the Apache Foundation, have not reduced their infringements of the rights of C.S. and our corporation, we had to conclude that the corresponding clause of the AoA and the ToS of our SOPR has become effective and a penalty is due to compensate the resulting and rising damages for C.S. and our corporation in a more fair and reasonable way.
Therefore, we are considering a penalty of 100% on the

until all infringing matter has been handled in accordance with the AoA and the ToS of our SOPR and the issue is finally solved.
Specifically, all members of the Linux Foundation and the Apache Foundation, and other organizations, as well as all of their supporters and contributors following a comparable strategy to disturb the goals and even threaten the integrity of our SOPR would be affected by this penalty.

The SOPR keeps the right to put further measures into action, for sure in accordance with the AoA and the ToS, and therefore in fair and reasonable ways.

Exclusion of Facebook
The facts in relation to payment systems and digital currencies are that

• OntoCoin and OntoTaler,
• StarTaler, as well as
• Quantum Coin©™ (Qoin©™)

• secured by our universal ledger,
• provided by our Ontologic Bank (OntoBank) of our Ontologic Financial System (OFinS) (see also the issues #113 of the 18th of March 2018),
• regulated by the joint ventures established by central banks and other authorities, and monetary funds as one group of joint partners and our OntoBank and other units of our OFinS as other group of joint partners (see also issues #197 of the 20th of June 2019, #198 of the 21st of June 2019, #207 of the 15th of July 2019, and #230 of the 17th of September 2019), and
• supported by European and American governments, as far as we can see.

So the question is: For What It's Worth (FWIW) that Facebook insists on a totally obsolete and unacceptable digital cryptocurrency of the type stablecoin?
Facebook and other entities can simply add a button labelled Qoin©™ for example to the User Interfaces (UIs) of their platforms and apps, et voilà there it is. Indeed, this is the only viable way to really

pro bono==for the public good.

As announced before, with the next serious attempt of Facebook to disturb the goals and even threaten the integrity of our SOPR we will put the company on our blacklist.
Needless to say, Facebook is not eligible anymore for becoming a dedicated main contractor and provider of our social and societal platform and we will not think about that matter again until Facebook has fulfilled all of our demands, including

But we already guess that it will be too late for the company due to our selection of alternatives.

Lifetime ban of Alphabet (Google)
The company Alphabet (Google) is still refusing to

• it is not in the position to make any decisions and demands since several years already,
• it is the defendant of our lawsuit,
• its suggestion of an equal partnership to commercialize the oeuvre of C.S. exlusively is just only ridiculous in total contrast to our takeover offer for (the majority control of) Alphabet for 1 U.S. Dollar, so to say to win our bet :D, and
• it must be happy if it is allowed to become a member of our SOPR at all,

and

Therefore, our SOPR has to issue our last official warning to it:
If the company Alphabet (Google)

and

then our SOPR might impose a lifetime ban of membership.

25.October.2019

-00:03 and 00:00
SOPR #240

*** Work in progress - cyberspace not delimited ***
As announced in the issue #238 of the 18th of October 2019, missing are the topics:

digital data rights leasing
The digital rights/data rights owner or holder is

• owning or handling digitals within the limits being set by the regulation of the scope of full access to raw data by our SOPR or
• acting only
  • in the common Internet, Darknet, World Wide Web (WWW), and Semantic (World Wide) Web (SWWW), which are included in the 5th and 6th rings and the assigned ID spaces of the IDentity Access and Management System (IDAMS) of our ON, OW, and OV, (see the sketch given in the Ontonics Further steps of the 10th of July 2017) and
  • without any direct connection with the other rings and assigned ID spaces.

Digital rights/Data rights leasing
An owner of digital rights/data rights may choose to lease digital rights/data rights to a company for development at any point. Signing a lease signals that both parties agree to the terms laid out in the lease. Lease terms typically include a

For instance, a digital rights/data rights owner might request that the company

when handling the digitals.
Leases are usually term-limited meaning the company has a limited amount of time to develop the digital properties (e.g. data sources) and utilize them. If it does not begin development within that time-frame it forfeits its right to capture, mine, pump, stream, or transfer those digitals (e.g. data).
The four components of digital rights/data rights leasing are:

1. Ownership
There are three distinct but related aspects of ownership. They are:

• net digital area (2D),
• net digital volume (3D),
• net digital event (4D), and
• net digital causality (nD).

2. Leasing
To bring digital reserves to market, digitals (e.g. data) are conveyed for a specified time to Information and Communication Technology (ICT) business units, subsidiaries, or companies (e.g. Big Data Processing (BDP) companies) through a legally binding contract known as a lease. Before capturing, mining, pumping, or transfering/streaming can begin, the digital owner (lessor) and the ICT company business unit, company subsidiary, or company (lessee) must agree to certain terms regarding the rights, privileges, and obligations of the respective parties during the exploration and possible production stages.
Although there are numerous other important details, the basic structure of the lease is straightforward: in exchange for an upfront payment as lease bonus, plus a royalty percentage of the value of any processing, the digital owner grants the ICT company unit, company subsidiary, or company the right to drill for a period of time, known as the primary term. If the term of the digital lease extends beyond the primary term, and a digitals source (e.g. data well) was not drilled, then the lessee is required to pay the lessor a delay rental. This delay rental could be $1 or more per net digital scope. In some cases, no drilling occurs and the lease simply expires.
The duration of the lease may be extended when capturing, mining, pumping, or transfering/streaming, or processing starts. This enters into the period of time known as the secondary term, which applies for as long as digitals are processed in paying quantities.

3. Division order
A division order is not a contract. It is a stipulation, derived from the lease agreement and other agreements, as to what the operator of a digital property (e.g. data well) or a digitals purchaser will disburse in terms of revenue to the digital owner and others. The purpose of the division order is to show how the digital revenues are divided up between the ICT company business unit, company subsidiary, or company, the owners of the digital rights/data rights (royalty owners) and the overriding royalty interest owners. The division order needs a signature, a current SOPR account, and social security number for individual royalty owners or tax identification number for companies.

Digitals (e.g. data) lease
A digitals lease is a contract because it contains

Many other line items can be negotiated by the time the contract is complete. The rights of all parties are defined in agreements; and, when mineral production begins, the division order states how much revenue goes to each party involved.

4. Royalty check
Digital owners may receive a monthly royalty check if digitals, or any other substances of value are extracted in the cyberspace and our digital state {or better digital estate?}, and either sold or used by an ICT company unit, company subsidiary, or company. Royalty statements include the production and revenue figures for both the individual owner and the entire data well. The royalty paid is a function of the net value of the proceeds from the sale of the digitals, or other substance, multiplied by the owner's revenue interest decimal, less any amounts deducted for taxes or other deductions.
The revenue decimal used to calculate the amount of an owner's royalty check is calculated with the following equation:

Revenue interest decimal = A : U * R * ( P * Y - D )
It is common for royalty checks to fluctuate between pay periods due to monthly changes in digitals prices, or changes in the amounts produced by the associated digitals source (e.g. data wells). Additionally, royalties may cease altogether if the associated digitals source (e.g. data wells) quit producing marketable quantities of digitals, if the operating company has changed hands and the new operator has not yet established a new payment account for the owner, or if the operating company or digitals (e.g. data, knowledge, algorithm) purchaser is missing appropriate paperwork or proper documentation of changes in ownership or contact information.

New Reality, OntoLand, and Cyberspace use agreement
A New Reality Use Agreement (NRUA), an OntoLand Use Agreement (OLUA), and a Cyberspace Use Agreement (CUA) are contracts between a (real or physical and virtual or metaphysical property, specificall digital) property owner and a digital rights/data rights holder that dictate how the digital rights/data rights are to be developed. Meaning, when digitals are captured (e.g. mined and pumped) by an ICT company business unit, company subsidiary, or company, that does not own the (real or physical, or virtual or metaphysical property, specifically digital) property

the digitals (e.g. data) originate, the company has the legal right to capture, mine, pump, or transfer/stream those digitals regardless. Companies can enter into voluntary negotiations with the New Reality, OntoLand, and cyberspace rights owner to ensure that the operations all go smoothly. In such cases, the company will offer an NRUA, OLUA, or CUA, in which property owners may ask for financial compensation or other concessions regarding how the digitals (e.g. data) are extracted.

The NRUA, OLUS, and CUA are directly related to the regulation of the scope of full access to raw data (see the issue ... of the ...).

Digitals stock exchange
The marketplace for everything system may

27.October.2019
Picture of the Day
Hasbro, Monopoly, Chance Get Out Of Jail Free This Card May Be Kept Until Needed Or Sold (1935)

© Hasbro

Ontonics Further steps
Our unsolicited but serious takeover offers submitted under fair and reasonable conditions for the companies are as follows:

But nice as we always are we increase our offers as follows:

As an extra, we even add on top

The ratio behind these decisions is based on the fact that the enterprise values of these companies

do not reflect their true values, specifically they do not take the costs of their serious legal issues into account, which correct their values to less than 30 to 50% of their enterprise values due to the facts that the

• illegal performance and the illegal reproduction of our Ontologic System (OS) and our Ontoscope (Os), and
• other illegal activities documented by us elsewhere,

• operation of these companies and
• collaboration of these companies with other entities, that are members of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR).

We would like to ask the responsible persons to explain the true situation to their lawyers and shareholders, and also tell them to stay happy.

We also would like to make takeover offers that might be viewed more serious.
On the basis of the actual enterprise values of companies listed at the stock markets we roughly estimate for better discussion the values of the

• Ontonics,
• OntoLab,
• our other business units, and
• all winners in the Ontonics
  • OntoLab Vision Fund I and
  • Blitz Fund I,

and

with 20 to 50 trillion, 20,000 to 50,000 billion, or 20,000,000,000,000 to 50,000,000,000,000 USD or even priceless.
In the 20 tn USD case we get the following ratios between our enterprise value and the slightly ridiculous enterprise values of all three companies (100%):

But taking into consideration the enterprise value corrected to 50% results in the following values and ratios:

And taking into consideration the enterprise value corrected to 30% results in the following values and ratios:

On this basis, we submit as takeover offers the values or the corresponding shares of Ontonics in the 50% case with buying out rights and Chance cards, when incorporating them into our corporation as other business units or subsidiaries.

We would like to add the companies

to our shopping cart.
Because there is still enough competition and we have our rights and control anyway, we can expect that the market regulators have no problems.

29.October.2019

02:32 and 03:32 UTC+2
Ontonics Blitz Fund I #4

Not surprisingly, our newest subfields

of the fields of Cyber-Physical Systems (CPSs), Internet of Things (IoT), and Networked Embedded Systems (NESs) are together the next winner of the 10 winners included in the Blitz Fund I.

07:25 and 09:52 UTC+1
Ontonics Further steps

We are examining how the dividend payout and the share buyout can be realized in the best way for the shareholders of the companies that we are intending to take over finally, so that they do not sue the persons, who are responsible for the conspiracy and other mess.
After learning that the subsidiary Alphabet→Waymo was valued with 175 bn USD and is still valued with 105 bn USD, we concluded that our estimations and offers of our own shares are sound (see the Further steps of the 27th of October 2019).

Now, we are asking us if an abandon of planned commissions or even a formal blacklisting is required. Our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) can wait a little longer to get sufficient reasons, though we have no obligations to collaborate with another company at all. :)

Btw.: We recall that the integration of the reflective programming language Python with Machine Learning (ML) and cloud computing is an evidence that shows a causal link with our Ontologic System, as discussed some years ago already.

02:32, 22:03, 23:31 UTC+1
SOPR #241

*** Work in progress ***
In this issue, we would like to give informations about the topics:

Legal Matter
The introduction of a localized Licensing Model (LM), as already discussed and announced sometimes in the past, is becoming more likely.
The withdrawal of discounts granted on the fixed fees and relative shares in some special cases is becoming more likely.
The introduction of a custom or individual Licensing Model (LM), as already discussed and announced a few times in the past, is becoming more likely, because the critical mass for continuing with our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR) seems not to be in reach at this time.

Infrastructure
We have begun to commission tasks and distribute responsibilities for the infrastructure of our SOPR under its eligible and qualified members.
As often said in the past in this relation, the problems are that our SOPR has no intention to interfere with the competition and abuse the market power due to its core principles, such as guaranteeing neutrality. In the course of this, we noted that our

• freedom of choice,
• innovation,
• competition
  • service quality,
• etc.

pro bono publico==for the public good.
But sadly to say, we learned about the latest political and economical developments, specifically we got the impression that the so-called clear cut is preferred now, though this is still colliding with our credo "All or nothing at all. Now and not in the future". As result, revisions of our commissioning plan and other decisions are very likely as well.

Exclusion of IBM
We have already announced such an action in the last months. But latest developments may suggest that we reached a point, where we have to act in accordance with the provisions included in the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Service (ToS) of our SORP.
Therefore, with the next serious attempt of IBM to disturb the goals and even threaten the integrity of our SOPR we will put the company on our blacklist.

Exclusion of Microsoft
We already put the company Microsoft on our blacklist some weeks ago but withdrew from our decision after reviewing the provisions included in the AoA and the ToS of our SOPR. But latest developments may suggest that our initial decision seemed not so incorrect.
We are also observing relevant political decisions of lawmakers in the U.S.A. and Europe to the advantage of Microsoft and to the disadvantage of collaborating companies, which would equal interferences with our SOPR, which again are not allowed.

Exclusion of Deutsches Forschungszentrum für Künstliche Intelligenz,

We have already announced such an action in the last months. But latest developments may suggest that we reached a point, where we have to act in accordance with the provisions included in the AoA and the ToS of our SORP.
Therefore, with the next serious attempt of the fake company Deutsches Forschungszentrum für Künstliche Intelligenz (DFKI)==German Research center for Artificial Intelligence to disturb the goals and even threaten the integrity of our SOPR we will put the company on our blacklist.
Please note that this exclusion would affect all shareholders and supporting entities of Deutsches Forschungszentrum für Künstliche Intelligenz (DFKI), including SAP, Deutsche Telekom, Volkswagen, and Airbus, and also Microsoft and Alphabet (Google) again, as well as some more companies.

Other projects
The fields of

which are supported by the SOPR as two of its other projects, have become together one of the 10 winners included in the Blitz Fund I. More informations are given in the news Ontonics Blitz Fund I #4 of today.

Diverses
We had the impression that our social and societal platform was called Internet of People (IoP). Howsoever, we already have the Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV) as designations for what we do.

31.October.2019

08:36, 09:02, 12:33, 14:34, and 20:57 UTC+1
Investigations: Multimedia, AI and KM

*** Work in progress - making complete and nice ***

We quote a preliminary report of a first magazine: "The European-Cloud: Altmaier presents plans for "Gaia X"
Federal Minister of Economics and Technology [of the government of the F.R.Germany], Peter Altmaier (CDU), wants to present his plans for an European cloud solution [...].
By this, an "efficient and competitive, secure and trustworthy data infrastructure for Europe" should be created, as said in a joint paper of the Ministry for Economic Affairs [and Energy], and the participating actors [...].
[...]
Altmaier's government agency "together with numerous actors of the economy [would have] worked out the first steps towards a networked data infrastructure for Germany and Europe in the past weeks", as said from the ministry. In the paper a networked data infrastructure is referred as a "cradle of a vital, European ecosystem". "Data will become the most important resource of the future", according to the ministry. "Therefore, Germany and Europe require a data infrastructure, which ensures our data sovereignty and makes possible that data are available more broadly than at present and securely." The network should also be open for "market participants outside of Europe", provided that they share "our goals of the data sovereignty and data availability".
Federal Minister of Research, Anja Karliczek (CDU), praised the commitment of the German industry with the buildup of "Gaia X". In doing so the German and European companies show that they would be ready, "want to be at the front in the digital age without coming into the dependency from large companies or states", she said [in a second magazine]". The minister of the CDU declared "Gaia X" as one of the most important digital projects for defending the top position of the German and European economy internationally.
Involved in the project are users and providers from the public administration, the health care, companies, and scientific institutes. It envisage the networking of decentralized infrastructure services, "specifically cloud and edge instances, to a homogenous, user-friendly system", as said in the paper. Unlike with the cloud computing data are processed decentrally with the edge computing.
According to the ministry, the next step is about to transfer the project into an appropriate legal form. This organization would deal with a reference architecture, technical requirements, and a set of rules. "It will be the core of the European ecosystem. We aim for an establishment of the organization in the first half year 2020.""

We also quote a second report of a propaganda newspaper of the German political party CDU, which was also convicted by us as a fake news provider: "Altmaiers fall overshadowed digital summit
Actually, the federal government wanted to present a concept for the networking of the industry in Dortmund.
[...]
Instead of Altmaier Thomas Jarzombek, commissioner [or representative] of the Federal Ministry of Economics for the Digital Economy, [together] with research minister Karliczek elucidated the new digital platform "Gaia X." Karliczek underlined: "Gaia X is our common baby. We have developed the concept to protect the European values in the digital world." The strategy was developed with the goal to emancipate Europe from the supremacy of the US internet companies more strongly. An idea, which Altmaier is persuing since a longer time sverfolgt.
Bei "Gaia X" hundreds of companies in Europe should interconnect their capacities sollen Hunderte Unternehmen in Europa ihre Kapazitäten for storing and processing of data in such a way that a notably better utilization of information becomes possible. First partners of the project are the Deutsche Telekom, the Walldorfer software giant SAP, Siemens, or the Deutsche Bank. "It is about, that data are utilized jointly, that but all participants retain the sovereignty over the data made available by them", says [a member of the] innovation board of the [Deutsche] Telekom. "The point is that data are shared but that all participants hold the data provided by them", says Claudia Nemat, Innovationsvorstand of the [Deutsche] Telekom. Dazu sollen common standards should be developed.
Chancellor Angela Merkel called on the economy [or industry] to become invovled with Gaia X. "We can [do] it only with the economy. It must be driven forward commercially", said Merkel in Dortmund. She also declared herself in favour to position against the US industry giants. "I am for a fair competition", said Merkel, but she would be against dependencies."

At first we had all those scandals, including grid computing, followed by cloud computing, and now also Grid, Cloud, and Edge Computing (GCEC), and also a reference architecture, an organization, a set of rules, and a designation for the whole endeavour. Or should we say directly Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV), and also Ontologic System Architecture (OSA), Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR)==Gesellschaft für die Ontologische Aufführung und Reproduktion, and Articles of Association (AoA)?

Strangely (not really), that in this case nobody was talking with us once again, but also that our Intellectual Property (IP) was stolen and our rights have been infringed together with the rest of the clique once again.
Here, one simply declares parts of our OS and our SOPR as a common property and seize the reins over them, which is even not an illegal expropriation without paying damage compensations, but only a despotic act of caprice.
And what comes next? Perhaps that our OntoLand is declared and seized as the European cyberspace?

Once again, we give the recommendation to companies to act here very carefully, particularly considered and in conformity with the law, specifically those companies, that are advising governments or are close to them.

We have a mixed impression due the experiences made in the last 2 decades and the fact that the actual procedure matches the already known and documented usual pattern, and hence we are still trying to understand the matter and working out our point of view.
Specifically, we do not comprehend why an European and even a German proprietary solution is presented at all, which even is merely an illegal copy of our international solution already presented.
But what we can already say is that in the case the so-called Gaia X is not legal, which is the case if it does not comply with the regulations of the

then the cradle will not swing children into sleep at all because they are already stillbirths.

In relation to our original and unique, iconic works of art titled Ontologic System and Ontoscope, and created by C.S. no completely free competition is possible. Furthermore, European values also include law and order. But law and order results in dependencies. For example, a lessee is dependent from a house owner, and a licensee is dependent from a creator. In this case investigated here we are the creator and the house owner.
By the way, the opinion of politicians are of no interest for us in the case of our works of art. What only matters are the constitution and the laws and our rights.

What is the point of that Gaia X? We already had that nonsense with that German blockchain. All that was never part of the consensus.
If Gaia X is not the related part of the SOPR infrastructure controlled and managed by our SOPR, but merely another blunt copy of our activities and accomplishments, then we

Our SOPR infrastructure is already there and soon in building up. In addition, most of the digital rights/data rights are hold by C.S. and therefore owned by our SOPR eventually.

It is not about data sovereignty and European values at all, but just only the next action as part of the attempt of the F.R.German clique and the other known U.S.American entities to get control over our Intellectual Properties (IPs). Therefore, it is only the usual fraud of the companies Deutsche Telekom, SAP, Siemens, and Deutsche Bank, as well as other local and foreign companies, and their related fraudulent universities and other research institutes.
After putting some of the pieces together, we can see that they have applied the already known serious criminal tricks of the industries on the level of the government, such as for example simulating a technological progress, artificially creating an alternative timeline, and ...: Single elements of our OS were copied, that seem to be legal, but only on the first sight. On the second sight one can see that

The clique does not accept but even still refuse to obey the reality, which means that its members

• have no reason at all to give them any control over our works of art and
• will not do so, because we would loose all, and

Also, the intentions and corresponding demands of governments and companies on the one side and C.S. and our corporation on the other side seem to be too far apart for a consensus under truly Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC) terms and conditions.
We are considering to turn to the individual License Model (LM) and file the announced lawsuits.
We already recommend all members of the clique to be careful when entering the U.S.A. or a close ally of the U.S.A. that signed the extradition agreement. Fraud is something our friends in the U.S.A. really do not like, as we learned once again in relation to Diesel or so.

We would like to give the reminder about some evidences for showing a causal link with our Ontologic System (OS) and our SOPR:

• Augmented Reality (AR),
• Virtual Reality (VR),
• Mixed Reality (MR), and
• Synthetic Reality (SR)

The complete list is considerably longer but this short excerpt already shows that there is no space to act and no possibility to circumvent anything in such unacceptable ways.

That is still very disappointing, but does not surprise us anymore.
Calling that brave or even clever would be wrong somehow. In fact, what we see here once again is the total incompetence of the F.R.German government and its industry in social, legal, and technological areas, as well as their resistance and even inability to

specifically in constructive ways. The resulting disaster for the nation becomes more and more obvious. But that is not our problem, that cannot be our problem, and that will not be our problem.
Do not risk to crash the whole location.
All or nothing at all. Now and not in the future.
We will not renegotiate the consensus.
We will not make any further concessions.
We will catch the whole clique if Gaia X is also a fraud.
Word of honour.

Btw.:

as well once again.

The SOPR should be replaced by own organizations to take over the control over the original and unique ArtWorks (AWs) and further Intellectual Properties (IPs) included in the oeuvre of C.S..

There will be a point in time in the next weeks when an agreement to our Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC) conditions has to be signed if injunction, prosecution, and all resulting consequences should be avoided.

If required at all, then the organizations must be established as joint ventures between public and federal institutes and authorities, and state-owned companies and SOPR, Ontonics, and other units of our corporation if overlap or interface ...

(see also for example the section Registries of items of the issue SOPR #226 of the 1st of September 2019 and the section Grid, Cloud, and Edge Computing System (GCECS) of the issue #234 of the 27th of September 2019) -->

07:36, 20:56, and 21:36 UTC+1
SOPR #242

*** Work in progress ***
topics:

Legal matter
After we discussed multiple times without any improvement over the last months that our

by the government, industry, and research community of the Federal Republic of Germany (F.R.G.) (see the Investigations::Multimedia, AI and KM of today for details) and made careful in-depth considerations, we came to the only conclusion that we have to withdraw two discounts granted on the fixed fees and relative shares (plus 2.5%) for the F.R.G. in accordance with the Articles of Association (AoA) and the Terms of Service (ToS) with the License Model (LM) of our Society for Ontological Performance and Reproduction (SOPR).

The discounts will be granted again, when the minimal requirements are fulfilled by the government of the F.R.G. and its economic industry and research community, though we do not expect miracles.
We retain the right for further suitable measures if the situation does not improve.

Sovereingty
The subject matter of digital rights/data rights is becoming ... quite interesting.
Besides the cyber sovereingty, which had its scope in the so-called cyberspace, which again is the old and phasing out common Internet and World Wide Web (WWW), which again are included with 5th and 6th rings of the IDentity Access and Management System (IDAMS) of our Ontologic Net (ON), Ontologic Web (OW), and Ontologic uniVerse (OV) (see for example the Ontonics Further steps of the 10th of July 2017 and the issue ... of the ...)

the

have become new demands of the states.

In wise foresight we drew up a set of rules for

• websites and webpages,
• screen spaces of displays,
• digital assets, and
• data (see the issues ... of the ... and ... of the ...),

which is becoming a comprehensive regulating work in this field.

Particularly, we already worked out in the issues #235 of the 5th of October 2019 and #240 of the 25th of October 2019 that data sovereingty is granted within the limits of

When turning to the digital rights/data rights, one can easily recognize that our opinion is that digital rights/data rights should become an

that complements a data privacy law.
But we do not have the opinion that such a law should become a set of rules or Articles of Association (AoA) of an organization, because

• AoA, including the
  • provision digital rights/data rights
• ToS, as well as

for other organizations or utilizations, such as for example a related law, is therefore prohibited by law, though the community might have legal demands.

A

• work of art in general and
• work of art of a living artist in particular.

Eventually, none of these actions of former despotic times will improve the position of a government, because all those actions would require the change or extension of the constitution, the copyright law, and the patent law, and therefore they all lead to nowhere, as we already explained multiple times in the past.

Who owns the digitals? Perhaps the owner of the real or physical estate (e.g. land or hardware), or better said, the tangible item, which is required so that digitals can originate, be provided or made available, and exist?
The customary regulation or practice is that the

• is a variant of our Os or
• includes a variant of our Os, when it is utilized
  • alone or
  • in combination with another hardware.

But eventually, the place or the hardware is operated

and the

• our digital or virtual state, that even requires no real state and no real estate to exist and is also known as OntoLand (OL), and
• a part of our digital estate,

obviously.

Do the royalties already include the granting of digital rights/data rights? Sadly, the answer is no, because a

The digital rights/data rights are a matter only licensed by us since some weeks, because all other entities have declared that they are still in a fierce competition, which was not our intention when we suggested the whole SOPR. So we do play the game by the rules. We recommend specifically online advertisers to be very nice to us.

Infrastructure
A very well known social media platform has as estimated operating expenses 45 to 50 billion U.S. Dollar this year and 55 to 58 billion U.S. Dollar next year. This gives us a

• License Model (LM) with its fees and shares, as well as
• exclusivity of specific technologies, goods, and services

of our SOPR are absolutely Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory, As well as Customary (FRANDAC) and hence justified. Honestly, it is a little higher than we have expected, but the royalties, revenue, and profit could be a little higher as well.