Meetings/Special Meeting 2006-11-27/transcript

From openSUSE

--- Log opened Mon Nov 27 18:00:00 2006
18:00 @<henne> ok here we go
18:01 @<henne> Welcome to the Microsoft/Novell QA Session!
18:01 @<henne> This meeting is meant to discuss the Microsoft/Novell Collaboration.
18:01 @<henne> We will try to answer as many questions as we can for round about one hour.
18:01 @<henne> After that we will try to answer all question that got posted in the wiki.
18:02 @<henne> Some technicalities:
18:02 @<henne> This channel is moderated during the time of the session.
18:02 @<henne> But it has +z set so the operators (but nobody else) can see what youre writing.
18:02 @<henne> So if you have a question or remark just write it.
18:02 @<henne> The moderator then will give you a voice and you can repeat your question for everyone.
18:02 @<henne> ok lets go :)
18:03 @<henne> first question please?
18:03 +<aka_druid_> at least 100% of the fellows in suse Ive asked
18:03 @<henne> aka_druid_: please repeat
18:03 +<aka_druid_> my question is: why nobody in suse fomr technical staff was aware of the deal?
18:04 +<aka_druid_> I mean, most people we talk from opensuse devel werent aware til the very last moment
18:04 +<aka_druid_> thats all, thx
18:04 +<AJaeger> aka_druid: I was planned to get briefed on the tuesday before but was flying at that time.
18:04 +<AJaeger> aka_druid: A couple of others were briefed - and I was briefed finally a few hours before.
18:05 +<Nat_> Just to add something to AJ's answer
18:05 +<Nat_> I was aware of discussions with Microsoft for a number of months
18:05 +<Nat_> Big companies are often talking to each other, though, and I didn't know if this conversation would go anywhere
18:05 +<aka_druid_> AJaeger: that meaning nobody from technical ahd anything to do, to add to elaborate about the deal? They didnt help constructing it?
18:05 +<aka_druid_> only got a notice from suits "hey we did this"
18:06 +<Nat_> There weren't technical people in the meetings in Redmond negotiation it, but we were asked for our input and made aware of the deal. And a bunch of people were told a week or so before the deal was announced.
18:06 +<Nat_> negotiating*
18:06 +<Nat_> In general for huge deals like this, you try to keep the number of people involved low or suddenly the whole industry is talking about it, so I'm not surprised that there was an open discussion on a maliing list about this :-)
18:07 @<henne> aka_druid_: does that answer your question?
18:07 +<aka_druid_> ok, so next question heh
18:07 +<aka_druid_> henne: ya
18:07 @<henne> Tassoman: please repeat
18:07 +<Tassoman> OK thanks, and hi to all: Did you enjoyed Shuttleworks openletter?
18:08 +<AJaeger> Tassoman: No, I didn't.
18:08 +<AJaeger> Tassoman: you should have seen my reply or my blog entry.
18:08 +<AJaeger> Tassoman: I understand that he does not agree with the deal but this was one step to far IMO.
18:09 @<henne> Tassoman: does that answer your question?
18:09 +<Tassoman> Sorry but I didn't read the blog.
18:09 +<Tassoman> BTW, I thinks it answered my question
18:09 +<Tassoman> thanks
18:09 +<AJaeger> Tassoman: http://www.novell.com/coolblogs/?p=648
18:10 @<henne> tolyluis: please repeat
18:10 +<tolyluis> what do you think about FSF's announcements about GPLv3? Sorr for my poor english
18:10 +<Nat_> Well, the GPL3 process has been underway since the beginning of this year.
18:11 +<Nat_> The FSF and Eben Moglen and the Software Freedom Law Center put together a process with four separate committees to discuss what needs to be in GPLv3
18:11 +<Nat_> Committees A, B, C and D
18:11 +<Nat_> A is big open source projects, B is big companies, C is users and smaller companies, and D is individuals and "other"
18:11 +<Nat_> So A includes, for example Samba
18:11 +<Nat_> Novell has representatives in both committtees A and B, and we have been talking to Eben about the FSF about the GPLv3 for a long time
18:12 +<Nat_> we're glad that they committed to making the writing of GPLv3 an open process
18:12 +<Nat_> We think it's better if the GPLv3 is accepted by lots of companies and individuals and projects
18:12 +<Nat_> Lately Eben and Richard and others have made some statements that they will "invalidate" the Novell/MS deal with GPLv3
18:12 +<Nat_> We're not exactly sure what they mean by that, because so far these are just vague statements
18:12 +<Nat_> We'll be interested in seeing the wording they are proposing for GPLv3
18:13 +<Nat_> We're glad they're talking about GPLv3, also, because it means that they don't think there are any incompatiblities between GPLv2 and the covenants issued by Novell and Microsoft. We invited Eben to our offices in Waltham and he read the entire Microsoft/Novell agreement
18:13 +<Nat_> and if you want to understand what are the promises that Microsoft has made to Novell customers, you can read those on microsoft.com/interop
18:13 +<Nat_> Does that answer your quesiton?
18:13 +<Nat_> question*
18:14 +<tolyluis> yes thanks
18:14 +<Nat_> Sure :-)
18:14 @<henne> JBarr-OSTG: please repeat
18:14 +<JBarr-OSTG> Will any changes be made to the MS/Novell agreements because of the uproar about them?
18:15 +<Nat_> Well there's definitely one thing that we've asked Microsoft to look at
18:15 +<Nat_> During the discussion with them we asked Microsoft to make a promise not to sue individual developers, ever, for patent infringement
18:15 +<Nat_> And we were pleasantly surprised that they were very open to doing this
18:15 +<Nat_> The "individual non-commercial" covenant that you can find on their web site is the result of that discussion
18:15 +<Nat_> Personally I think it falls very short of the mark
18:16 +<Nat_> I don't think it covers enough people
18:16 +<Nat_> or enough activities
18:16 +<Nat_> I think it's a big step that MS is going out there and saying "we're not going to sue individuals"
18:16 +<Nat_> and they're saying this in a legally binding way
18:16 +<Nat_> some people have said "MS was never going to sue individuals"
18:16 +<Nat_> but just look at the RIAA in the US
18:16 +<Nat_> which is suing 15 year olds and 95 year old grandmas on a regular basis these days
18:16 +<Nat_> So we're glad MS started from that sentiment
18:17 +<Nat_> but the execution stinks so far, and we've asked them to update that covenant
18:17 +<Nat_> and they are working on it. they're going to send us a draft this week
18:17 +<Nat_> you even have one MS employee, Jason Matusow, asking for public comment about these covenants on his blog
18:17 +<Nat_> So that's one area of the agreement that we have asked MS to change
18:18 @<henne> JBarr-OSTG: answered?
18:18 @<darix> question answered?
18:18 +<JBarr-OSTG> yes, thanks
18:18 @<henne> corbet: please go ahead
18:18 +<AJaeger> Here's the URL from Jason: http://blogs.msdn.com/jasonmatusow/archive/2006/11/11/your-input-requested.aspx
18:18 +<corbet> Novell claims to have not acknowledged any patent infringements
18:18 +<corbet> by Linux. But Novell is now paying a tax to Microsoft on the
18:18 +<corbet> Linux distributions it ships. What, exactly, is Novell paying
18:18 +<corbet> for?
18:19 +<Nat_> We're paying for the promise that Microsoft made to our customers not to sue them
18:20 +<corbet> Not to sue them for *what*? For problems you don't acknowledge exist?
18:20 +<Nat_> Well, we put together an agreement with MS to make Linux and Windows work better together
18:20 +<Nat_> Now, as everyone knows, MS has spent the last 10 years saying negative things about Linux
18:20 +<Nat_> including implying that there are IP issues in Linux
18:20 +<Nat_> It didn't make sense for us to do a partnersihp with MS on interoperability issues and still have this patent cloud hanging around for our customers
18:20 +<Nat_> and so MS asked us to put together a patent agreement as well.
18:21 +<Nat_> And so, we promise MS's customers that we won't sue them and they promise the same thing to our customres
18:21 +<Nat_> They pay us for our promise and we pay them for their promise
18:21 +<Nat_> It doesn't matter if the allegations from MSFT are true or not
18:21 +<Nat_> People can sue each other anyway, and a patent lawsuit is very expensive to defend against
18:22 @<henne> corbet: does that answer your q.?
18:22 +<corbet> Almost...
18:22 @<henne> that means?
18:22 +<corbet> How did you come up with the value for the "promise" that Microsoft made?
18:23 +<Nat_> I have no idea how they did that
18:23 +<Nat_> That's above my pay grade :-)
18:23 +<Nat_> In general when it comes to patent questions
18:23 +<Nat_> you look at two things
18:23 +<Nat_> 1. The patents that the patent holder has
18:23 +<Nat_> 2. The business over the person who wants patent protection or coverage
18:23 +<Nat_> And the dollar amount is usually a function of these two values
18:24 +<Nat_> So for example, you might only hold one patent
18:24 +<Nat_> but if you sue company X for infringing your one patent, and company X makes $1 billion/year in revenue based on their product that infringes your patent
18:24 +<Nat_> then even though you only have one patent, you can extract a lot of money from company X
18:24 +<Nat_> So I'm guessing the team that put together the deal considered both the MS and the Novell revenue
18:25 +<Nat_> You notice that the balance of payments is heavily in NOvell's favor
18:25 +<Nat_> I.e. MS are giving us much, much more money than we are giving them
18:25 +<corbet> So how was part (1) done here? Which patents were looked at? That's what I've been driving at here...
18:25 +<Nat_> Novell has a few hundred patents, and MS has thousands. So you can guess that the quality of the patents and the revenue streams of both companies were considered
18:26 +<Nat_> corbet: I'm just talking in general about patents and money, not talking about how the MS/Novell deal was constructed
18:26 @<henne> corbet: Nat just said. he wasnt involved in that process
18:26 +<Nat_> corbet: again, I'm not sure how they came up with those numbers
18:26 +<Nat_> I wasn't involved in that
18:26 @<henne> okay to be fair the next question
18:26 +<corbet> OK, well, thanks, I'll step aside now.
18:26 @<henne> suka: please go ahead
18:26 +<suka> Most of the Novell engineers were suspiciously quiet about the deal with MS, so would you say it is fair to interpret this as a sign of silently not-agreeing with it? Or asked more directly: Do you think this was the right thing to do?
18:28 +<AJaeger> I wanted to say something directly - and was on the IRC channel afterwards.
18:28 +<AJaeger> I listened to the webcast and started writing my blog - and went to bed.
18:29 +<AJaeger> next morning the MS Covenants were out and confused me - and I guess a lot of others. So, we had some internal discussions..
18:29 +<Nat_> I think people have overreacted to this deal
18:29 +<Nat_> I guess because it involves the words "Microsoft" and "patents"
18:30 +<Nat_> I think a few major things happened here
18:30 +<Nat_> 1. Novell got Microsoft to acknowledge that Linux is an important part of IT, and that customers need it.
18:30 +<Nat_> This is a huge step forward from where things were before.
18:30 +<Nat_> Compare this to "Linux is a cancer" from not that long ago.
18:30 +<Nat_> 2. Novell cut a good business deal for itself.
18:30 +<Nat_> Novell gets a lot of revenue out of this, and we'll be able to invest some of that in engineering, in openSUSE, in making Linux great.
18:31 +<Nat_> 3. Windows/Linux interoperability will improve.
18:31 +<Nat_> We're going to write new virtualization code, new Open XML code, and release it all as open source.
18:31 +<Nat_> We contribute heavily to open source already, but now we can do more
18:31 +<Nat_> Now, to address people's concerns
18:31 +<Nat_> 4. This deal does not take anything away from anyone
18:32 +<Nat_> Microsoft promising not to sue Novell's customers does not mean that they are promising TO sue anyone else
18:32 +<Nat_> I know people like to look at the "negative space" on this because everyone implicitly thinks Microsoft are legal geniuses and can't be trusted
18:32 +<Nat_> But the fact is, nothing has been taken away
18:32 +<Nat_> No useful legal precedent has been created.
18:32 +<Nat_> A judge will never look at this deal and say "Okay, your patents are all infringed by Linux ,Mr. Ballmer"
18:33 +<Nat_> So I think all the cries that Novell has hurt the community are simply not true
18:33 +<Nat_> 5. This deal does not violate GPLv2.
18:33 +<Nat_> Eben Moglen read our agreement and hasn't said a thing about GPLv2 violation. It's abundantly clear that he doesn't think there is any.
18:33 +<Nat_> Instead, he and Richard are using the community energy to try to get people to adopt the previously-controversial GPLv3 (which we support also)
18:34 +<Nat_> 6. Ballmer has been FUDding Linux o nIP issues for years
18:34 +<Nat_> This deal didn't change anything on that front, obviously.
18:34 +<Nat_> Ron (our CEO) published a nice letter the other day contradicting Ballmer's statements.
18:34 +<Nat_> So, net-net, MS acknowledges Linux, we improve interop, Novell gets more money into Linux
18:34 +<Nat_> And nothing is lost from a legal perspective.
18:34 +<Nat_> People say "you're dividing the community!"
18:35 +<Nat_> But I think the people who make too much of this, who shun Novell, are the ones dividing the community.
18:35 @<darix> did this answer the question?
18:35 +<Nat_> Okay
18:35 +<Nat_> I'md one :-)
18:35 +<suka> Nearly. Nat: You were talking about re-investing the money in openSUSE: Something to back that up? What will we get? More paid engineers?
18:35 +<Nat_> suka: "Stay tuned." I hope so :-)
18:35 @<darix> suka: more buildservice engineers!:)
18:35 +<suka> Ok, thanks :)
18:35 @<darix> i've heard so
18:35 * AJaeger fears that it won't mean higher salaries ;-)
18:35 @<henne> ok next question
18:36 @<henne> bgerber: please go ahead
18:36 +<bgerber> What is Novells stance on GPLv3? Will it be used by Novell?
18:36 +<Nat_> GPLv3 doesn't exist yet
18:36 +<Nat_> we haven't seen a near-final draft yet
18:36 +<Nat_> So it's hard to say.
18:37 +<bgerber> You are still making changes so Novell is able to use it?
18:37 +<Nat_> Some projects will adopt it, and some of those are really critical to what we do -- glibc for example.
18:37 +<bgerber> What about Novell sponsdered project?
18:37 +<Nat_> We are very happy with GPLv2 and it looks like hte kernel will probably stick with that.
18:37 +<Nat_> bgerber: The license we use depends on what we're trying to accomplish
18:38 +<Nat_> We have some X11 licensed code, for example the Mono class libraries.
18:38 +<Nat_> X
18:38 +<Nat_> etc
18:38 +<adrianL> bgerber: the reasons why GPLv3 is not liked for Novell is also valid for other companies. So, in the current state it would not be used by a large number of companies atm, I fear
18:38 +<Nat_> That's a good point adrian
18:38 +<Nat_> Also one thing to consider is indemnification being offered by other companies
18:38 +<bgerber> yes I agree I dislike the DRM
18:38 @<henne> bgerber: youre sitting in a room with AJaeger. who works heavily in the glibc steering comitee. so novell sponsored...
18:38 +<Nat_> So for example, Red Hat and Oracle both claim to offer patent indemnification to their customers
18:39 +<Nat_> So if you are customer A, and you buy Linux from one of those companies, they promise to step in and protect you from any patent lawsuits
18:39 +<Nat_> But that promise is only for their customers
18:39 +<Nat_> so if you make a copy of the software and give it to customer B, who did not pay Red Hat or Oracle, the promise does not extend to customer B
18:39 +<Nat_> this is extremely similar in concept and in form to the promise MS is making to Novell's customers
18:40 +<Nat_> So my guess is that GPLv3 will need to be compatible with the existing business practices of all those Linux companies
18:40 +<Nat_> (HP offers that too I believe)
18:40 +<bgerber> I understand that. I insist my clients buy, what is needed from Novell for their business needs
18:40 @<henne> :)
18:40 +<hd41> Thanks for that!
18:40 @<henne> bgerber: question answered?
18:40 +<bgerber> yes
18:40 @<henne> ok next one
18:40 +<tonz> are there any benefits for the whole open source community from this deal?
18:41 +<Nat_> A few
18:41 +<Nat_> We are collaborating with Microsoft on a few different interop areas
18:41 +<Nat_> We'll be adding Open XML support to OpenOffice, building a virtualization shim to run SLES optimized on Veridian and Vista on Xen
18:42 +<Nat_> We'll also be working together on WS-Management
18:42 +<Nat_> All this code will be released open source
18:42 +<Nat_> so everyone gets that, and can benefit from it
18:42 +<Nat_> (By the way, in that process, we don't plan to add MS-patented code to our contributions)
18:43 +<Nat_> (Our policy on that is unchanged -- and MS didn't give us the right to do that anyway!)
18:43 @<henne> tonz: answered?
18:43 +<tonz> yes, thanks
18:43 +<Nat_> Also I think it's good that MS acknowledges Linux
18:43 +<Nat_> and we want that individual covenant from MS to be better, so that all the hackers of the world know for certain that they won't be sued
18:43 @<henne> the_dude: your turn
18:44 +<the_dude> ok, i think this agreement creates a perception that novell/suse is moving away from the opensource communitiy, what will novell do to keep users from migrating away to other distributio
18:44 +<the_dude> ns
18:44 * henne kicks the_dude
18:44 +<the_dude> fine
18:44 @<henne> ;)
18:44 +<Nat_> We're not moving away from open source at all!
18:44 +<the_dude> i did not say that
18:45 +<Nat_> Okay :-) But we have to remind everyone of that
18:45 +<Nat_> I think there are a lot of misunderstandings out there
18:45 +<Nat_> and we need to clear those up
18:45 +<Nat_> like we're doing here
18:45 +<Nat_> also, I think people choose Linux distributions because they're good, because they work well. we're going to keep working hard to make SUSE the best Linux distribution on the planet :-)
18:45 +<the_dude> all i know is how my peers talk about it
18:46 +<the_dude> and the talk is in general not postive
18:46 @<darix> the_dude: sure. but you can also try to clear up the missunderstandings. :)
18:46 +<AJaeger> the_dude: Do you have any ideas on how to change their mood?
18:46 +<Nat_> Yeah, we're open to ideas on this one
18:46 +<the_dude> hmmm ..
18:46 +<the_dude> i was hoping you'd help me on this one :)
18:46 +<Nat_> Well, point them to our public answers, have them send us emai lwith their questions
18:47 +<the_dude> fair enough
18:47 +<Nat_> again, we think a lot of people have gotten overexcited about this because they don't understand it
18:47 @<darix> the_dude: done?
18:47 +<the_dude> sure
18:47 +<the_dude> thanks
18:47 @<henne> dotan: your turn
18:48 +<dotan> I guess Nat answerred it
18:48 +<dotan> thanks anyway
18:48 +<Nat_> Heh
18:48 +<Nat_> You can ask another one if you want
18:48 +<dead_rose> How this deal going to affect me, not a developper but a technical user who is using SuSE to make a living pushing out Microsoft from SMB datacenters and desktop users, by replacing it with opensource solutions ?
18:48 @<henne> we still have a lot of questions in the queue
18:49 +<hd41> It will help you quite a bit, first it will give confidence to your customers that Linux and Windows will be working together
18:50 +<hd41> and second it will give them a much more secure environment then the Windows boxes they run
18:51 +<hd41> (You see, we are still competing!)
18:51 @<darix> dead_rose: answered?:)
18:51 +<dead_rose> hmmm sure
18:51 @<darix> dead_rose: if there is anything unclear just say it. :)
18:51 +<Nat_> Let us know if we can help you in other ways :-)
18:51 +<Nat_> We support your mission :-)
18:52 +<dead_rose> Is it Novell gonna protect me ?
18:52 +<dead_rose> in case Microsoft put the hounds after me
18:53 +<dead_rose> ok 10x
18:53 +<Nat_> We will do everything we can to support you :-) Novell offers indemnification to our customers, MS promises not to sue Novell customers, and Novell has invested heavily in the Open Invention Network which protects EVERYONE against patent lawsuits.
18:53 +<Nat_> By the way, Novell didn't need protection from the OIN itself. We already had hundreds of patents. But we invested anyway -- effectively giving protection to all the other Linux companies.
18:53 @<darix> done?
18:54 +<dead_rose> Yes but this is not a patent infrigment but an attack on some biz area !
18:54 +<Nat_> If you are trying to kick Windows out
18:54 +<Nat_> and put Linux in
18:54 +<Nat_> we will do everything we can to help you!
18:54 +<dead_rose> I guess I am not the only one !
18:54 +<Nat_> :-)
18:54 @<darix> dead_rose: as ballmer said: we are still competing in the business. :)
18:54 @<henne> dead_rose: question answered now?
18:55 +<dead_rose> 10x nat ... I apreciate your effort to come in here
18:55 +<dead_rose> 100% ok
18:55 @<darix> next!
18:55 @<henne> idra: go ahead
18:55 +<idra> ok a question again on the deal itself
18:56 +<idra> What does get form the deal? so far you told us what's the Novell pros, and what happen if MS does not keep up the promises?
18:56 +<idra> I mean how novel can react if MS sues a Novell customer anyway?
18:56 +<Nat_> We will make fun of them in public
18:56 +<Nat_> :-)
18:57 +<Nat_> I'm not exactly sure what the provisions are on breach of contract
18:57 +<Nat_> in this deal
18:57 +<Nat_> but usually it's a pretty serious thing
18:57 +<Nat_> Also, the covenants MS is offering are not secret
18:57 +<idra> and how Novell can react if MS drag its feet and do not really help much for interoperability? Or worst help only in one direction Linux -> Windows
18:57 +<Nat_> you can go to microsoft.com/interop right now and read them
18:57 +<Nat_> they are promises Microsoft is making to all Novell customers
18:57 +<adrianL> idra: Novell can sue MS, if MS does it , but the customer has to tell us
18:57 +<Nat_> and MS intends them to be legally binding
18:58 +<Nat_> I doubt that will happen idra
18:58 +<Nat_> Doesn't seem likely.
18:58 +<idra> sorry guys, I've read all the material, I am asking question that are not answered by that material
18:58 +<hd41> On interoperability Microsoft has already started to work with us. We have engineer to engineer talks around Lohnhorn's hypervisor already and are starting with real work soon!
18:58 +<idra> Nat_, well MS history speaks clearly about that but if you think this case will be different I accept your answer
18:58 +<Nat_> Everyone thinks MS are these geniuses who always put together bulletproof deals
18:59 +<Nat_> but history speaks otherwise on that., too
18:59 +<Nat_> Remember the case where Microsoft sued Lindows for trademark infringement?
18:59 +<hd41> The customers who have asked for interoperability are very powerfull cusomters even from a Miscoroft perspective.
18:59 +<Nat_> The judge who oversaw the case ended up calling into quesiton the Windows trademark itself
18:59 +<idra> (I was referring to cooperation btw)
18:59 +<Nat_> Microsoft essentially lost in the US
18:59 +<Nat_> and ended up paying Lindows a HUGE $24million settlement
18:59 +<Nat_> and all Lindows had to do was change the name
18:59 +<Nat_> The whole deal was supposed to be secret
19:00 +<Nat_> but then Lindows (now Linspire) was compelled by the SEC to reveal the secrets of the deal
19:00 +<Nat_> as a material financial event for Linpsire, which was going public at the time
19:00 +<Nat_> So... here you have MS suing a small company
19:00 +<Nat_> and the result is, they pay $24 million, their secrets aren't kept, and the Windows trademark itself is questioned
19:00 +<Nat_> This does not sound like the work of geniuses
19:00 +<Nat_> there are numerous examples like this
19:01 +<Nat_> so I would turn the paranoia knob down one notch :-)
19:01 +<idra> I've aked specifically what
19:01 +<Nat_> We are glad to be partnered with Microsoft and are really glad they want to work together with us to make Linux/Windows interoperability function better
19:01 +<idra> Novell can do in case Microsoft don't respect these 2 promises
19:01 +<Nat_> idra: I don't know, that's part of our contract I'm sure. It would be breach of contract, which is usually pretty serious. That's a detail of the deal which I'm not privy to.
19:02 +<Nat_> It would look really bad for MS though, I'm sure.
19:02 @<henne> okay next question idra?
19:02 +<hd41> We have all the ways available between two parties of a contract, nothing special we are aware of.
19:02 +<idra> the only one unaswered, is what are the pros for MS ?
19:02 @<darix> idra: novell holds some patents aswell.
19:03 +<idra> darix, that's the only pro for MS ?
19:03 +<hd41> They are satisfying their large customers who have pushed them towards this.
19:03 +<hd41> For all other motives I think you need to ask them.
19:03 @<henne> idra: questions answered?
19:03 +<idra> yes
19:04 @<henne> okay one little adimistrative thing :)
19:04 @<henne> we have spend one hour now
19:04 @<henne> i will not accept new questions
19:04 @<henne> but only empty the queue
19:04 @<henne> so we have time to answer the questions from the wiki
19:04 @<henne> netmask: go ahead
19:04 +<netmask> (Q) I still have old mail/blogs to read but as far as I've already gathered Microsoft won't sue individuals if they code and use patented code at home and don't distribute. ZDNet says "it's worst than useless". Some GPL advocates claim that the non-sueing agreement should apply to all users/developers, even if they don't use SLE(S/D). How is the discussion on this area? Is Novell interested in extending the deal to non-Novell Linux users?
19:05 +<Nat_> Good quesiton, we covered this one earlier in the hour
19:05 +<Nat_> I agree that the individual covenant from Microsoft is not good enough
19:05 +<Nat_> We've asked MS to broaden it
19:05 +<Nat_> They want to make it broader, to make it work for the community
19:05 +<Nat_> We're working on that with them now
19:05 +<Nat_> I hope we have results soon :-)
19:05 +<netmask> so no news for now?
19:05 +<Nat_> Nothing yet
19:05 +<netmask> thanks
19:05 +<Nat_> Sorry, thanksgiving interrupted the work
19:06 @<henne> tolyluis again
19:06 +<tolyluis> last question?
19:06 @<darix> tolyluis: just ask your question
19:06 +<tolyluis> what Novell think about patents?. Do you want to go on here in Europe?
19:06 +<Nat_> By the way, I recommend everyone read our FAQ on this deal if they haven't already
19:06 +<Nat_> http://www.novell.com/linux/microsoft/faq_opensource.html
19:07 +<Nat_> tolyluis: we have a public patent statement on that
19:07 +<Nat_> http://www.novell.com/company/policies/patent/european.html
19:07 +<Nat_> In short, we think article 52 of the european patent covention is good as it stands
19:07 @<henne> tolyluis: you had another one
19:08 @<henne> tolyluis: another question i mean
19:08 +<tolyluis> no i dont for now sorry
19:08 @<henne> okay
19:08 @<henne> mcxx: please go ahead
19:08 +<mcxx> Do you fear openSUSE developers will migrate to other distributions, as proposed by Shuttelworth. Why/why not?
19:09 +<adrianL> I do not fear Shuttleworth, because people who fear that openSUSE might violate GPL will notgo to a distro which actually is doing it. ;)
19:10 +<mcxx> But they don't need to switch to Ubuntu.
19:10 +<Nat_> Also openSUSE is clearly a great distribution. We're glad Ubuntu is out there too -- the more the merrier -- as the pie is plenty big enough for all of us.
19:10 +<adrianL> of course there is always a risk that people will switch because of decisions, but there is also always the chance that others switch to because of this reason in the opposite direction
19:11 @<henne> mcxx: question answered?
19:11 +<mcxx> yes, thanks
19:11 +<adrianL> mcxx: we can be frigthend now, but only the time will tell ...
19:12 @<henne> Tsuroerusu: please go ahead
19:12 +<Tsuroerusu> >If< this deal is going to violate GPLv3, is Novell willing to fork all the last GPLv2 versions of the libaries and components needed to put a distribution out the door (glibc, gcc etc. etc) ?
19:12 @<darix> we should work on creating a good 10.2 so they stick to suse.
19:12 +<Nat_> Obviously we don't want to spend our time forking and maintaining parallel branches of glibc, gcc, etc
19:12 +<Nat_> But it's really hard to discuss GPLv3 considering it doesn't exist yet
19:13 +<Nat_> And despite these ominous and threatening statements from Eben and Richard, we don't know what form it will take
19:13 +<Nat_> The way I heard their statements, they were more of a threat to Microsoft than to Novell.
19:13 +<Nat_> Anyway, that's a hypothetical question that is hard to answer without the details.
19:13 +<AJaeger> Let's wait for the next draft of GPLv3.
19:13 +<Tsuroerusu> OK, one more thing
19:13 @<henne> a tiny one i hope ;)
19:14 @<henne> go ahead
19:14 @<henne> faster
19:14 +<Tsuroerusu> Excuse me, my keyboard sucks, hang on ;)
19:15 @<henne> hm
19:15 +<Nat_> I also just want to say, for the Ubuntu question, I think it's best for Linux if we all focus on taking users from Microsoft instead of shifting them between Linux distributions.
19:15 @<darix> Tsuroerusu: just a reminder: you only have roughly 480 chars ;)
19:15 +<Nat_> Also, there are a few billion people out there who hvaen't even chosen an operating system yet
19:15 +<Nat_> that leaves a lot of room for all of us.
19:15 +<Tsuroerusu> Nat_: You said earlier that you still were gonna work on making SUSE the best distro, well, how about giving permission or whatever is needed to allow ZMD, rug etc. to be taken out of openSUSE I have had so many curse words about ZMD and stuff that it would offend you.
19:16 +<AJaeger> Tsuroerusu: Get 10.2 ;-)
19:16 +<Tsuroerusu> AJaeger: It's still default, and that's the problem ;)
19:16 +<Tsuroerusu> I want it fed to the dog
19:16 +<Tsuroerusu> :P
19:16 +<AJaeger> By default you get the "Enterprise Software management Pattern" - just disable that and use the "openSUSE SW Pattern"
19:16 @<henne> please. not that topic again. this is OFF-TOPIC
19:16 +<AJaeger> This is off-topic, I'm not answering further ;-)
19:17 @<henne> this is something for a general status meeting
19:17 @<darix> next
19:17 +<kblin> How does this "non-commercial vs commercial" developer split affect summer of code students who obviously earned money for their work during the summer and who continue to contribute to their respective projects in their spare time now?
19:17 @<henne> kblin: please go ahead
19:17 +<Nat_> It's not clearly defined
19:17 +<Nat_> kblin: I think that's one of the limitations of the individual covenant
19:17 +<Nat_> as we mentioned before, we are not happy with the way that covenant was written
19:17 +<Nat_> MS has acknowledged that the covenant is not good enough either
19:18 +<Nat_> google for "jason matusow covenant" and you'll find a blog from an MS employee about that
19:18 @<darix> http://blogs.msdn.com/jasonmatusow/archive/2006/11/11/your-input-requested.aspx
19:18 +<Nat_> We are working with MS to improve that covenant so that it's actually useful.
19:18 +<Nat_> Ah thanks darix :-)
19:18 +<Nat_> The idea is to cover all open source developers.
19:18 +<Nat_> So we hope we can get the wording a lot closer in the next draft :-)
19:18 @<henne> kblin: does that answer your question?
19:19 +<kblin> sort of
19:19 +<kblin> I have another one though
19:19 +<Nat_> Shoot
19:19 +<kblin> has microsoft expressed any interest in cooperating inother compatibility areas? apart from xen and OOo?
19:20 +<kblin> say, samba or kerberos.. or wine
19:20 +<hd41> We do have a huge wishlist for them, no worries
19:20 +<hd41> The three areas we already agreed on are the beginning, not the end. I am sure you will see more going forward.
19:21 +<kblin> hd41, let's say I worry because so far they haven't given the EU much useful documentation
19:21 +<hd41> Virtualization, OpenOffice and WebServicesManagement is where we begin.
19:21 +<hd41> We can't really comment on that.
19:21 @<darix> isnt samba and mono covered too?
19:22 @<henne> kblin: are you satisfied?
19:22 +<hd41> What we know is that openSUSE 10.1 and SUSE Linux Enterprise 10 were able to get a lot of Active Directory integration done, and our customers love it!
19:22 +<kblin> I've read nothing on wine.. and it's patents on the api I'm concerned abouth
19:22 @<darix> kblin: i dont think wine will be covered.
19:22 @<darix> kblin: done?
19:22 +<kblin> anyway, that goes in the direction of what irda asked, and that wasn't really answered
19:22 +<kblin> so, done
19:23 @<henne> okay final question from the queue
19:23 @<henne> dotan: again
19:23 +<dotan> Hi again :) do you think the community feedback you recieved is somewhat "orgenised"? and what is the motivation to do so?
19:23 +<Nat_> I think it's pretty disorganized
19:24 +<Nat_> Different people are expressing different opinions
19:24 @<henne> ouch
19:24 +<Nat_> Some people say "Oh god! A deal with MS!"
19:24 +<Nat_> Some say "A deal with MS is good! But oh god, you acknowledged that patents are infringed by Linux!"
19:24 +<Nat_> and then some people said
19:24 +<Nat_> "A deal with MS is okay! And every piece of software infringes patents! But the covenants are not good!"
19:24 +<Nat_> So... I don't think it's particularly organized.
19:25 @<henne> dotan: does that answer your question?
19:25 +<dotan> sure, cool with me
19:26 @<henne> okay
19:26 @<henne> now we are going over to the wiki questions
19:26 @<henne> http://en.opensuse.org/Meetings/Special_Meeting_2006-11-27
19:27 +<adrianL> which ones are not answered yet ?
19:27 @<henne> give us a minute to sort out whats not already answered
19:29 +<Nat_> Question from Marcell: What will Novell do when MS starts to sue other linux distros (ie. community driven Debian, Gentoo, Arch...) for patent infringments? Suggest paying 40m in cash?
19:29 +<Nat_> Novell invested a huge quantity of resources into the Open Invention Network
19:30 +<Nat_> which is an independent company formed to protect all distributors of Linux against patent lawsuits
19:30 +<Nat_> We gave OIN money and helped them get patents which they can use to retaliate against anyone who sues a Linux distributor
19:30 +<Nat_> So if MS were to sue Mandriva for distributing Linux, for example, OIN's protection would be triggered
19:30 +<Nat_> We think OIN is a great organization and we continue to support OIN.
19:31 +<Nat_> The same protection would apply to non-profits like Debian.
19:31 +<Nat_> (www.openinventionnetwork.com for more information)
19:33 @<henne> question from cb400f__
19:33 @<henne> If the public financial details are correct. MS will pay $240 million for 5x70.000 SLE coupons. According to my calculations that's about $685 per coupon. I understand that a coupon is a one year subscription. That's a pretty steep price, makes people, including me, think MS might be buying something other than coupons for the money. Maybe there's some relation to question #1, otherwise I don't like to think about what MS is buying.
19:33 +<hd41> Microsoft will be a sales channel of Novell going forward.
19:34 +<hd41> As part of this deal Microsoft is purchasing 70,000 coupons a year.
19:34 +<hd41> The coupons are for standard and priority subscriptios of SUSE Linux Enterprise Server and include support from Novell to the end customer.
19:35 +<hd41> The pricing is a normal price which we use in other deals of such sizes.
19:35 +<Nat_> Mono is covered by the agreement, to answer JBarr's question.
19:35 @<henne> thwere are no questions in the wiki we didnt answer i think
19:36 @<henne> right?
19:36 +<Nat_> Sounds good to me
19:36 +<Nat_> Thanks for joining us everyone :-)
19:36 @<henne> So that was it. I hope we answered at least some of your questions (im sure Nat fingers hurt).
19:36 @<henne> If you have more dont hesitate to contact us on opensuse-project@opensuse.org
19:36 +<hd41> Thanks everybody!
19:36 @<henne> Thank you all for participating. Good night and good luck!
--- Log closed Mon Nov 27 19:37:38 2006