Novell's IRC session on the Microsoft deal

The following is a transcript of Novell's question-and-answer IRC session about its deal with Microsoft, held on November 27.

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

---

to post comments