decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Ralf Flaxa's Declaration - as text - What Caldera Knew and When It Knew It
Wednesday, October 04 2006 @ 10:45 AM EDT

From the beginning of our SCO saga, SCO has maintained the pretense that they had no idea that the code they sued IBM and others about was in Linux. Yes, they might have distributed under the GPL, but that was other people's code and they didn't know. I find that hilarious.

I always did, but it's doubly so now that they are pretty much reduced to claims about methods and concepts, which they say you don't need to have specific code to point to. If that were true, then how come they didn't at least know about the methods and concepts being in there? They taught Linux. They did support. They sold it. They did their own, tweaked distro. And leaving specific code out of this, they never noticed file systems in Linux, for example, were quite a lot like Unix? Yet they released over and over under the GPL. It is hilarious, and I think I may be forgiven for suggesting that at a minimum they appear to have released all the methods and concepts under the GPL knowingly.

An ex-employee, Ralf Flaxa, now stands up and says on IBM's behalf that SCO did more than that. SCO knew what was in there with specificity, he testifies, and released under the GPL knowingly. SCO employees contributed code to the kernel under the GPL. For example, IPX was contributed to Linux by SCO. Flaxa was Director of Caldera's Linux development team back when. He was also Caldera's point man for UnitedLinux and for the Linux Standard Base (LSB), and he has plenty to say about that also. He now works for SUSE.

Here is Flaxa's Declaration [PDF], attached as an exhibit to the Declaration of Todd Shaughnessy. I guess you could call this the "What Caldera Knew and When Did it Know It" declaration.

Flaxa's Declaration pretty much pulls the plug on SCO's claims about ELF, header files, and Streams. SCO was keeping them on artificial respiration anyhow, despite there being no brain wave activity. But this is The End. We must prepare ourselves for the demise of those claims. Sob. Sob.

Flaxa testifies that Caldera knew all of those things were in Linux back in the late '90s, and they knew what was in UnitedLinux, too, and they distributed under the GPL knowingly. Flaxa says he was there, and they knew the tech, because *he* knew the tech and he worked for them. He even wrote a book about it back then, and he attaches excerpts from the book.

If SCO has noticed that Linux seems a bit like Unix, he suggests they look in a mirror to find out why. He testifies they did all they could to make it that way. Further, "Caldera sought to assist Linux in achieving technological equality with UNIX as quickly as possible."

Ah. You mean it wasn't IBM helping Linux move from being a bicycle to an enterprise race car? SCO (then Caldera) worked to do that itself? Yes, says Flaxa. I worked there and that was my job, to implement that wish. And SCO worked hard to make Linux POSIX compliant because they wanted Linux to have Unix capabilities for the enterprise.

Here's the detail of what he tells the court:

  • He worked for Caldera on a freelance basis for two years, until 1997, when he became an employee and served as the Director of Caldera's Linux development team.

  • Prior to that, he and others worked on a Linux business with a Linux distribution called LST. Caldera asked to use this distro in around 1994-5 as the basis of its own Linux distribution, and it based its Caldera Network Desktop and Caldera OpenLinux products on LST. Caldera acquired LST in 1997, and formed Caldera Deutschland GmbH, with Flaxa as one of the two Directors of Linux development, the other being Stefan Probst.

  • Probst and Flaxa wrote a book, "Power Linux" in 1997, in German and later translated into English, about Linux and LST, and the book included two CDs. The book noted they worked for Caldera, and stressed how much like Unix Linux was, with functional elements necessary to follow POSIX and other standards applicable to UNIX distributions: "Support of common standards means that Linux is to a great extent POSIX compatible and follows Unix traditions in almost every area." Caldera wanted Unix POSIX compliance and worked to make Linux that way. "Caldera Inc. in Utah, USA is striving for Unix certification of Linux by 1997." As a result, "Though Linux cannot yet be embellished with the name Unix, it does in fact provide almost everything available in an official Unix release".

  • Caldera was involved in Linux standardization efforts, including the Linux Standard Base ("LSB"), when he began his employment. Then CEO of Caldera Ransom Love was highly active in LSB. Flaxa headed one of three technical sub-committees while at Caldera and was Caldera's representative to LSB, with his assignment being to pursue LSB compliance for Caldera's Linux products. Caldera's OpenLinux product was used as the basis for "creating a sample implementation for the LSB."

  • Caldera employees, including Flaxa, contributed to the Linux kernel "in the course of their employment." You can find their names in the Linux CREDITS file, including Ron Holt, Jim Freeman and Greg Page.

  • Caldera was the main impetus driving UnitedLinux, and Flaxa was the Project Manager for that, coordinating the company's involvement. For that reason, he knew what code and technologies were in UnitedLinux, and so did Caldera. Caldera wanted UnitedLinux to have Unix capabilities.

  • SCO is suing now over header files required by standards bodies, ELF, and Streams. While Flaxa was working at Caldera, he knew they were in Linux and Caldera incorporated them in their products.

  • Caldera distributed under the GPL knowingly.

Why is all this Declaration so important? Because if you are screaming about a copyright infringement, and the court finds out you did it yourself, the judge might not give you any money for it. Duh. And if you know and do nothing for years and years, you certainly can lose your right to collect also. Here, Caldera did both.

Here is why you can sometimes lose the right to claim relief even if there actually is a copyright infringement. I don't know if you saw the charming poem that Yehuda Berlinger wrote, transforming copyright law into poetry that I put in News Picks. If so, you may have noticed this verse:

You can't be a criminal
If five years have passed
And no civil actions
If three years have amassed

That is explaining in verse this section of copyright law:

§ 507. Limitations on actions

(a) Criminal Proceedings. - Except as expressly provided otherwise in this title, no criminal proceeding shall be maintained under the provisions of this title unless it is commenced within 5 years after the cause of action arose.

(b) Civil Actions. - No civil action shall be maintained under the provisions of this title unless it is commenced within three years after the claim accrued.

When does a claim "accrue"? And does that mean what it seems to mean? This is a topic of such complexity, not to mention being an area of law that seems to be shifting in courts' interpretations that I can't sum it up for you in a sentence, but I'm highlighting that it's an issue now in this case regarding ELF, headers and Streams. You can read a bit about the statute of limitations and copyright infringement on William Patry's Copyright Blog, where he explains that while you don't lose your copyright if you don't bring an action within the time frames listed, you can lose your right to relief. But suffice it to say that SCO has a harder time now getting damages even if it could prove infringement of those elements, which in my view it can't anyway. According to Flaxa, and his book published back in the late '90s, Caldera knew about all those elements way back then. It's too late to seek relief now, according to that statute. That's if all courts followed that statute religiously, which they don't always, at least not with music. But when they don't, it's usually based on when the infringement was discovered, not when it first happened, and here SCO loses on both prongs, because Flaxa says it happened a long time ago, and they knew about it at the time. Lose. Lose.

The sections from the book, attached to the Declaration as Exhibit 1, were a bit hard to reproduce as text. So I copied as much as seemed relevant, including the sections that Flaxa had highlighted, and some surrounding materials. For the full effect, you need to look at the PDF itself.

But, you may say, Flaxa claims Ransom Love was involved in LSB and wanted POSIX compliance, but maybe Love will show up and testify differently, and then it will be he said/he said. I don't think that will happen. For one thing, the book is evidence, powerful evidence, because it was cast in ink back then and can't be modified. It shows they knew. And just in case that isn't enough for you, there is so much evidence in print. Here's a 1999 speech [PDF] Love gave on LSB, comparing it to the US Constitution. Here's a quote of his in Linux Today, from May of 1999, Ransom Love on LSB:

"Caldera Systems has always wanted Linux to be a viable commercial alternative, so we believe the only real answer is to support LSB."

That was then. This is now. Now they want to sue IBM for wanting to make Linux a viable commercial alternative. Here's another choice quote:

"A Linux standard supported in the spirit of Open Source software is a major step in removing the last obstacle to the main stream adoption of Linux by key hardware and software providers in the industry. This standard will facilitate an increased quantity and quality of business solutions for Linux. Caldera salutes Linux International's efforts and lends its support to promoting this much needed step in the evolution and adoption of Linux." - Ransom H. Love, General Manager, OpenLinux Division, Caldera, Inc.

That page is "The first writeup of the Linux System Base Proposal, signed by multiple players in the Linux community." It explains the LSB, if you are not familiar with it. And why was Love interested in LSB? He was targetting the enterprise, according to this February 2000 editorial in Software Magazine:

Why should software managers be interested in open source software? The simple answer is: Enterprise software managers can hedge technology risk by diversifying their software portfolios to include open source software....

But that is not the reason open source software is taking off. It's because the software is highly reliable; the model of development has technical advantages; developers like it; and the price is attractive Yet the open source community faces many challenges in gaining enterprise acceptance. One of those is the Linux Standard Base issue. This cause has been championed in particular by Ransom Love, president and CEO of Caldera Systems Inc.

And he was still pushing LSB at LinuxWorld in February of 2002. So, it's just so obviously true, what Flaxa testifies. And Love wasn't the only CEO that was saying how important LSB was. Here's Darl McBride, later in 2002, after he replaced Love, waxing poetic about the importance of standards:

"If the Linux community is going to successfully compete against companies like Microsoft, we have to be rallied around standards and interoperability. LSB gives us that....

"LSB is a specification that will help customers adopt Linux more readily. LSB sets a minimum standard by which Linux platforms, applications, and middleware can all interoperate. LSB is absolutely necessary if Linux is to succeed....

"In the world of Windows, one company has control over code, development, licensing, upgrade cycles, pricing, distribution, etc. It's pretty clear that if you are a customer of Microsoft, you're giving up a lot of control and you're locked into proprietary software around their 'standard'. "If Linux companies are going to be successful in providing solutions that compete against MS [Microsoft], then we have to agree upon a certain set of standards. That's why Caldera/SCO has been so vocal and supportive of LSB from its early beginnings. That's why we made sure that our partners made LSB certification a top priority in the upcoming release of UnitedLinux--due out in the October/November time frame."

Funny, huh? Flaxa mentions Caldera OpenLinux in his Declaration, and as it happens, I have Caldera OpenLinux Free Version, 2.3. So I took a look, and sure enough, you see Flaxa's name all over the place. Here's a couple, followed by Caldera's copyright, and I believe that by putting the copyright symbol, Caldera indicated that it had registered with the Copyright Office, which makes me think it might be interesting to see what exactly they told the Copyright Office they registered:

*******************************

EXHIBIT 598

SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.
Alan L. Sullivan (3152)
Todd M. Shaughnessy (6651)
Amy F. Sorenson (8947)
[address, phone, fax]

CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
Evan R. Chesler (admitted pro hac vice)
David R. Marriott (7572)
[address, phone, fax]

Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff
International Business Machines Corporation

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRCT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

THE SCO GROUP, INC.

Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,

vs.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES
CORPORATION,

Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.

DECLARATION OF RALF FLAXA

Civil No. 2:03CV0294 DAK

Honorable Dale A. Kimball

Magistrate Judge Brooke C . Wells

2

I, Ralf Flaxa, declare as follows:

1. I was employed at Caldera, Inc. ("Caldera") on a freelance basis from November 1995 until October 1997. I was then a full-time Caldera employee from November 1997 until June 2002. I served as a Director of Caldera's Linux development team in Erlangen, Germany.

2. I am currently employed as Director, Project Management for SUSE Linux, a wholly owned subsidiary of Novell, Inc., in Nuremberg, Germany.

3. I am knowledgeable in English, but German is my native language.

4. This declaration is submitted in connection with the lawsuit brought by The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO") against IBM, titled The SCO Group, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corporation, Civil No. 2:03CV-0294 DAK (D. Utah 2003). I make this declaration based upon personal knowledge.

5. Prior to the start of my employment with Caldera, Stefan Probst, myself, and others were involved in a business called LST where we developed a Linux distribution known as LST.

6. In approximately late 1994 to early 1995, Caldera approached LST to use the LST Linux distribution. At that point, I began working for Caldera as a contractor. LST worked with Caldera for two years.

7. Caldera based its Caldera Network Desktop and Caldera OpenLinux products on the LST Linux distribution and its installer technology.

8. Caldera acquired LST in 1997, forming a German corporation called Caldera Deutschland GmbH. Stefan Probst and I were Directors of Linux Development and had both

3

people and budget responsibility for Caldera Deutschland GmbH, a wholly owned subsidiary of Caldera.

Power Linux

9. Mr. Probst and I authored a book entitled Power Linux. This book was originally written in German based on our personal knowledge and was published by Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg in 1997. In this book, we provided a general description of the Linux operating system, and a start-up guide for the LST Linux distribution (i.e., how to install, configure and start up the LST Linux operating system), and included two compact discs containing the LST distribution.

10. Power Linux was later translated into the English language. (Excerpts of the English version are attached as Ex. 1.) I was not involved in the translation process. However, the excerpts cited below in Paragraphs 11- 15 are correctly translated as best I can determine as a non-native English speaker.

11. The book noted that Stefan Probst and I "developed Linux systems and software for Caldera in the USA". (Ex. 1 at ii.)

12. In Power Linux, we recognized that Linux was a UNIX standard-compliant operating system that followed the POSIX standards and other standards applicable to UNIX distributions: "Support of common standards means that Linux is to a great extent POSIX compatible and follows Unix traditions in almost every area. The benefits are the simple integration of Linux systems into existing Unix computer networks and the easy transfer of software to the Linux platform". (Ex. 1 at 3.)

4

13. In Power Linux, Mr. Probst and I noted that Linux largely included functional elements required to support the UNIX standards: "Many efforts have already been made to transfer important standards from the Unix world to Linux. Already there are Linux systems certified to the POSIX.1 standard. Some of the required changes are already integrated in the Linux 2.0 kernel, and one can expect that the kernel will fully support POSIX.1". (Ex. 1 at 4.)

14. In Power Linux, we referenced the efforts undertaken by Caldera to pursue UNIX certification for Linux: "Caldera Inc. in Utah, USA is striving for Unix certification of Linux by 1997. Unix certification will definitely help Linux on the road to success. One will hear more on that subject in the near future within the frame of the 'Caldera Open Linux' development". (Ex. 1 at 5.)

15. In Power Linux, we noted that: "Though Linux cannot yet be embellished with the name Unix, it does in fact provide almost everything available in an official Unix release". (Ex. 1 at 8.)

Caldera Involvement in Linux Standardization

16. Caldera was involved in Linux standardization efforts, including the Linux Standard Base ("LSB"), when I began my employment.

17. LSB is a joint project by several GNU/Linux distributions under the organizational structure of the Free Standards Group to standardize the internal structure of Linux-based operating systems. The LSB is based on IEEE's POSIX specification, the Open Group's Single UNIX Specification, and several other open standards.

5

18. The goal of the LSB is to develop and promote a set of standards that will increase compatibility among Linux distributions and enable software applications to run on any compliant system.

19. Caldera, and particularly its CEO Ransom Love, was very active in the LSB and believed that the establishment of a standard interface was crucial to the future of both Linux and Caldera.

20. The LSB project was reorganized in 1998 into three technical sub-committee projects of equal importance, with each sub-committee having a technical lead. I was the technical lead for the LSB's Sample Implementation sub-committee, and held this position simultaneous with my employment at Caldera. Caldera's OpenLinux product was used as the basis for creating a sample implementation for the LSB.

21. I also served as the chief representative from Caldera to the LSB, and among my job responsibilities was to pursue LSB compliance for Caldera's Linux products.

Caldera's Contributions to Linux

22. Caldera employees made several important contributions to Linux in the course of their employment with the company.

23. For example, one of Caldera's key contributions to Linux included IPX. Several Caldera engineers are credited in the CREDITS file in the Linux kernel source with contributions, including Jim Freeman, Greg Page, and Ron Holt.

24. Caldera also played a key role in convincing partners to contribute to Linux. Largely as a result of these efforts, Caldera engineers and I have been recognized within the Linux CREDITS files.

6

United Linux

25. Caldera was the main driver of the formation of the UnitedLinux project. I was the Project Manager for Caldera and coordinated the company's involvement in United Linux. In this role, I was very familiar with the contents and features of UnitedLinux.

26. Caldera wanted UnitedLinux to have most all of the capabilities of UNIX.

27. Caldera knew exactly what was in the UnitedLinux code. The company's engineers, including myself, were very familiar with what was in Linux and knew what code and technologies were included.

SCO's Allegations

28. I understand that SCO claims that certain materials in Linux infringe SCO's alleged intellectual property, specifically: header files required by the Open Group's Single Unix Specification (SUS), header files relating to the Streams technology, and files and specifications relating to the Executable and Linking Format (ELF).

29. While employed at Caldera, I was aware that this material was present in Linux. I know so because of my familiarity with Linux and also because Caldera incorporated it into its Linux products.

30. Caldera distributed significant parts of its Linux products under the GNU General Public License (GPL).

31. Caldera sought to assist Linux in achieving technological equality with UNIX as quickly as possible.

7

I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed: September 25, 2006.

Nuremberg, Germany

____[signature]____
Ralf Flaxa

8

EXHIBIT 1

9

Support of Unix standards

Support of common standards means that Linux is to a great extent POSIX compatible and follows UNIX traditions in almost every area. The benefits are the simple integration of Linux systems into existing Unix computer networks and the easy transfer of software to the Linux platform.

10

1.1.3 Standardization

Standardization

Many efforts have already been made to transfer important standards from the Unix world to Linux. Already there are Linux systems certified to the POSIX.1 standard. Some of the required changes are already integrated in the Linux 2.0 kernel, and one can expect that the kernel will fully support POSIX.1. The next step will be the XPG4 certification for Linux systems.

Caldera, Inc. in Utah, USA is striving for Unix certification of Linux by 1997. Unix certification will definitely help Linux on the road to success. One will hear more on that subject in the near future within the frame of the "Caldera Open Linux" development. ...

1.2 POWER LINUX

The POWER LINUX system before you is derived from the LST (Linux Support Team) distribution. LST is an independeat German development, which has its roots at the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg. Some fundamental changes have been introduced with the creation of version 2.2 from LST:

  • all software can be installed, removed, and updated using software management tools that work with the rpm package format;
  • complete conversion to ELF;3
  • compatibility with Caldera and Red Hat Linux;
  • orientation to the development of Caldera OpenLinux.

3 ELF - Executable and Linking Format

11

LST Software GmbH -- The development of LST is beeing continued by LST Software GmbH in Erlangen, Germany and POWER LINUX is based on Caldera GmbH OpenLinux Lite, the freely available version of Caldera OpenLinux.

12

The legendary "Unix" - After installing your new Linux system, you can dive into an exciting adventure with an operating system which may have been relatively unknown to you till now but whose benefits you surely have heard of: "Unix". Thought Linux cannot yet be embellished with the name Unix, it does in fact provide almost everything available in an official Unix release.

Multiuser system - Unlike many of the PC operating systems you may have used in the past, Unix traditionally has been a multiuser system. Where previously you may have worked with such a system as a normal user, Unix now offers you the unique chance to gain practical experience as system administrator with unlimited access to the system. After all, it is your PC with which you can do whatever you want. Even if accumulated errors necessitate a new installation, on the whole you will have at least gained valuable experience.

Responsibilities of the system administrator - Imagine what would happen, if you, as system administrator, made a mistake within a Unix system used by many people every day. Initially, since you are probably the only user of your computer, a mistake will not affect anyone else. You can regard Linux as a big playground in which you collect valuable experience in the use and understanding of Unix and system administration.

The versatility of Linux - Of course, you can also use your Linux system as a serious production environment for software development, word processing, or as a private productive desktop. Figure 1.5 shows the launchpad, which supports your daily work with useful programs.

In Chapter 5 we delve into details about the different programs and applications provided with the system and give you some ideas how to best use them.

13


  


Ralf Flaxa's Declaration - as text - What Caldera Knew and When It Knew It | 277 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections here please
Authored by: Erwan on Wednesday, October 04 2006 @ 10:48 AM EDT
If any,

---
Erwan

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic here
Authored by: Erwan on Wednesday, October 04 2006 @ 10:50 AM EDT
Don't forget links as clickies...

---
Erwan

[ Reply to This | # ]

Thanks to R. Flaxa
Authored by: WhiteFang on Wednesday, October 04 2006 @ 11:14 AM EDT
More and more of SCOX's case is becoming a 'matter of law' with the chance for
any 'dispute' receeding ever faster in the distance.

A big thank you to Mr. Flaxa for telling it like it was and a big thanks to PJ
for the insights.

:-D

---
DRM - Degrading, Repulsive, Meanspirited 'Nuff Said.
"I shouldn't have asked ... "

[ Reply to This | # ]

Do you suppose SCO wilf now sue Flaxa? n/t
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 04 2006 @ 11:24 AM EDT
no text

[ Reply to This | # ]

Tennis Score
Authored by: BassSinger on Wednesday, October 04 2006 @ 11:30 AM EDT
In tennis the score would be:
Ransom - Love
in IBM's favor.

That is Game, Set & Match

---
In A Chord,

Tom

Proud Member of the Kitsap Chordsmen
Registered Linux User # 154358

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Discredit Flaxa String - Or-How are we going to get around this?
Authored by: webster on Wednesday, October 04 2006 @ 11:33 AM EDT
.
1. SCO really has its work cut out to counter this declaration. This supports
IBM's argument that SCO waived any contract violation by its Linux activities.
It is pretty incontrovertible since it is out of a SCO mouth, Flaxa's.

2. Since Flaxa now works for Suse Linux, SCO can say that he now has a bias and
will say anything to down SCO and support Suse who may deal with IBM.

3. But poor SCO can't rewrite his book. Or say that he never worked for SCO or
that he never spoke or acted for them.

4. Maybe there is some old SCO underling that will say that Flaxa was a loose
cannon who went of on his own and did and said things without authority. Better
yet get Love to say it. It will be tough, won't appear to be true. But a
cautions Judge like Kimball needs at least a semblance of a factual issue to
keep this thing alive.

5. Maybe Blepp can counter him. Where was Blepp at this time? Did he know
Flaxa? What else is in his suitcase? Gruusss Gott! Varum mussen zie immer
dumheit machen?

6. Yikes! IBM might also try and use this declaration to obliterate the
copyright issue also as if they needed anything else. We need to check his
phone records and googles! We need to make him think about the reciprocal cost
of outing SCO.

---
webster

[ Reply to This | # ]

Ralf Flaxa's Declaration - as text - What Caldera Knew and When It Knew It
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 04 2006 @ 12:14 PM EDT
Oh, come now PJ. You really don't understand that Caldera was nothing to do with
TSCOG. Well for this instance anyway. So SCO/TSCOG could not possibly have
release their secret methods and concepts.

I mean, everyone knows that TSCOG is SCO's successor in interest, it doesn't
really matter how it got there. Well doesn't it. What do you mean that Caldera
was part of that lineage. We only need that to prove lineage um....

Tufty
;)

[ Reply to This | # ]

The usual "where are the stockholders?" thread
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 04 2006 @ 12:16 PM EDT
At what point might we see robust action by stockholders for gross incompetence,
since it appears that neither directors nor senior management have any idea what
it is that the company owns or what it is doing?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Flaxa & Petreley
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 04 2006 @ 12:17 PM EDT
> ... maybe Love will show up and testify differently, and then it will be he
said/he said.

Some confusion here? Flaxa says "I did know" while Love says "I
did not know." So what?

By the way, Caldera paid Nick Petreley to work for LSB.
About time to smoke out this gentleman?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Ralf Flaxa's Declaration - as text - What Caldera Knew and When It Knew It
Authored by: Jude on Wednesday, October 04 2006 @ 12:34 PM EDT
IANAL, and I admit I have problems when I try to analyze the conundrum that SCO
created by buying (part of) Unix *after* the alleged infringement happened,
thereby instantly becoming an injured party.

Perhaps it would be simpler to analyze in terms of "due diligence":
Caldera was uniquely qualified to know that the Unix stuff they bought was
"damaged goods", so it's their own darn fault if they went ahead and
bought it anyway.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Ralf Flaxa's Declaration - as text - What Caldera Knew and When It Knew It
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 04 2006 @ 12:34 PM EDT
How does SCO have a case anymore? I know they never did, but this seems to strip
away any kind of an argument they could make.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCOX's appeal to privilege
Authored by: meshuggeneh on Wednesday, October 04 2006 @ 12:41 PM EDT
In regard's to IBM's accusations of lying... surely the judge can see now that
nothing else could explain all the deceit and the misleading public
statements--not to mention these court proceedings--than that SCOX was engaged
in an organized smear campaign of which they were NOT the beneficiary.

What will happen to SCOX and their conspirators?

What can happen?

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • SCOX's appeal to privilege - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 04 2006 @ 01:14 PM EDT
    • M$ and GBL - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 04 2006 @ 09:29 PM EDT
      • M$ and GBL - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 04 2006 @ 10:54 PM EDT
      • You're at least 12 years late - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 05 2006 @ 08:15 PM EDT
      • M$ and GBL - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 06 2006 @ 09:36 AM EDT
        • Legacy code... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 06 2006 @ 10:49 PM EDT
Obliteration science
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 04 2006 @ 12:42 PM EDT
It's interesting, and somewhat comical, just to read how many ways SCO's case is
being obliterated by IBM.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The sad thing is:
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 04 2006 @ 01:10 PM EDT
The sad thing is that once this whole case is finished, it will have done
nothing to prove the legal soundness of Linux and the GPL, but will only attest
to the bottomless stupidity and depravity of SCO.

They are suing based on copyrights they don't have, for methods and concepts
that are not subject to copyright, and can't be pinpointed by them in Linux code
anyway, even though the one party that has put some of that stuff in has been
themselves.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Ralf Flaxa's Declaration - FLAXA was an AGENT... that can not be denied.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 04 2006 @ 01:11 PM EDT
Flaxa was an agent for the principle who is now suing because they don't own UNIX, but they thought they did, so they sued.

FLAXA WAS 100% ACTING as an agent, even without the blessing of RANSOM LOVE was the key person to this project, and as an agent was making LINUX to be what, in part, it might be today.

Of course - we also have USL vs BSDI, and the settlement, and Novell with the copyrights, AND the OPEN GROUP who was handed the UNIX standards rights by Novell (meaning the methods and concepts were not sold to Santa Cruz Operation in the first place)..., etc.

But this Flaxa stuff is HUGE - FLAXA was an agent, PERIOD... that can never be denied... and how he acted then, means something NOW!

Long live the denial for injunction in USL vs BSDI - that has shown up again here -

http://cm.bell-l abs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/bsdi/bsdisuit.html

Someone should send these judges a copy of the USL vs BSDI ruling and other stuff... just as an FYI.

Groklaw -  Search using the words:  Law of Agency

Title Date Author Appare nt authority Saturday, September 23 2006 @ 08:57 PM EDT IMANAL My las t remark in this thread, I hope Tuesday, August 08 2006 @ 11:48 PM EDT rsteinmetz70112 Thinki ng about SCOX being an agent of Novell Tuesday, July 25 2006 @ 03:52 AM EDT Wol Thinki ng about SCOX being an agent of Novell Monday, July 24 2006 @ 06:05 AM EDT Wol So...< /a> Wednesday, July 19 2006 @ 12:02 AM EDT Anonymous IF you buy software from what appears to be a Microsoft agent can you be harmed? Law of Agency? Tuesday, July 18 2006 @ 08:31 AM EDT Anonymous The PI PE fairy, battles and a sword of Damoclese Thursday, April 13 2006 @ 04:39 AM EDT Wol "failu re to name indispensable parties" Sunday, July 31 2005 @ 11:12 PM EDT marbux Law of Agency... Ok, but--> Saturday, July 30 2005 @ 06:11 PM EDT Anonymous "indem nification provisions" ??? Laws of Agency and Estoppel would rule in cases! Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 06:35 AM EST Anonymous Even m ore slightly wrong (grin) Monday, September 13 2004 @ 10:50 PM EDT Anonymous About the Words! Ask any lawyer, Puhlease do. Wednesday, August 04 2004 @ 05:05 PM EDT Anonymous I've p aid $$$ for my LINUX - SO WE NEED TO TAKE Laws of Agency case ACTION NOW. Tuesday, August 03 2004 @ 05:25 PM EDT Anonymous Some w ords come to mind.... Agents, Estoppel, Acquiecence, Manifestation of Consent, etc! Thursday, July 22 2004 @ 10:07 PM EDT Anonymous AutoZo ne - talk to your attorney general about Estoppel By Laches and the Laws Of Agency! Monday, April 26 2004 @ 08:33 PM EDT Anonymous Who re leased the WiX? Friday, April 09 2004 @ 12:24 PM EDT Superbiskit Fact is a hard thing to deny- Estoppel, authority, Acquiescense, etc... Saturday, December 13 2003 @ 08:15 AM EST Anonymous More on actual, apparent, ostensible, authority and acquiescence (from previous groklaw post) Monday, December 01 2003 @ 10:21 PM EST Anonymous

[ Reply to This | # ]

    Ralf Flaxa's Declaration - as text - What Caldera Knew and When It Knew It
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 04 2006 @ 01:20 PM EDT
    "Please remember that the Unix folks tried that semi-proprietary route already, thinking it would increase profits and market share, and it failed miserably. For you "pragmatists" who say there's nothing wrong with closed, proprietary software, here's what's wrong with it: people don't want it. If you give them a choice, they'll choose open every time....End users like open."
    How Much Was the Unix Caldera Bought Actually Worth?

    I agree with the quote, but then the screenshots above are taken with a proprietary Unix system...

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    "maybe Love will show up and testify differently"
    Authored by: tangomike on Wednesday, October 04 2006 @ 01:22 PM EDT
    I doubt it. Ransom Love warned Darl not to take on the Linux community. There's
    loads of quotes from him that would make any serious contradiction of Flaxa
    laughable, never mind open to prosecution.

    I've gotten to where TSCOG lies are so common that I now assume anything they
    and their lawyers say is false until proven otherwise.

    But Ransom Love was in charge of Caldera when the company was genuinely trying
    to promote and improve Linux. It's insulting to suggest he's changed his mind or
    can be bought, even when it's probably intended to be one of those "in
    their dreams" examples.

    ---
    Deja moo - I've heard that bull before.


    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Ransom Love knew too, and also knew Santa Cruz did not purchase UNIX
    Authored by: Chris Lingard on Wednesday, October 04 2006 @ 01:52 PM EDT

    Ransom Love began his Linux career by leaving Novell to help found Linux seller Caldera in 1994. Here is an article from 2002

    The management team was against it (except then-Novell CEO Chairman Ray Noorda). We set up a skunk works to develop Linux and higher-level network software. They were really quite threatened by what we had prototyped--all that was running on top of a Linux environment. Then, Bob Frankenberg came in (replacing Noorda in 1994), and all the vice presidents were against what we were doing. Bob decided that we were going to focus on just the browser. It was threatening to the LAN WorkPlace team. They had gone in and convinced management that we just needed the browser. In reality, they just wanted to get our project and kill it.

    Caldera made official patches, using the GPL, to the kernel, to standards, and to binutils for ELF. They were no way near a major contributor, but any help is always welcome. You will find "someone@caldera in the binutils package, where engineers contributed.

    When they [Novell] sold Unix to SCO, they kept a lot of stuff themselves. That could provide a buffer between SCO and the industry. It'll be fun to watch what happens.

    But lack of money restricted the sale of UNIX to Santa Cruz to a franchise to sell Unixware on a 5% commission.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    What is the rational?
    Authored by: Yossarian on Wednesday, October 04 2006 @ 02:02 PM EDT
    >An ex-employee, Ralf Flaxa, now stands up and says on
    >IBM's behalf that SCO did more than that. SCO knew
    >what was in there with specificity,

    Flaxa's declartion is just one more nail in the coffin,
    and probably not the last one. I suspect that IBM has
    a nail gun loaded with such nails.

    So the question for SCO is, why bother?
    Why not just raise a big white flag and ask for mercy?
    I can see two possible answers:

    1) Some SCO principles have a personal exit strategy,
    and they need a little more time. Something Kenneth Lay
    trying to delay Enron's collapse while selling his stock.

    2) SCO's lawyers try to avoid personal liability by
    pretending that all this data is new to them.

    Does anybody have another guess?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Ralf Flaxa's all over the newsgroups
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 04 2006 @ 02:09 PM EDT
    Back in the beginning of this lawsuit I read tons of newsgroup posting and
    mailing list postings by Ralf concerning LSB and all the details of ABI, ELF,
    POSIX etc. So not only is there his book, but tons of "living
    documentation" concerning meeting notes, discussions, disagreements, draft
    specs etc. available on the web and out of the reach of SCO's web
    administrators.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Ralf Flaxa's Declaration - as text - What Caldera Knew and When It Knew It
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 04 2006 @ 02:19 PM EDT
    This document would probably make more sense if Flaxa mentioned that SCO is the
    successor-in-interest to Caldera, which this document fails to mention.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Ralf Flaxa's Declaration - as text - What Caldera Knew and When It Knew It
    Authored by: th80 on Wednesday, October 04 2006 @ 02:21 PM EDT
    You know this whole case is turning into a history project for Unix and Linux
    development. And what an expensive "archelogical dig" it's turned out
    to be.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    I start looking for a Red Blazer!
    Authored by: markpmc on Wednesday, October 04 2006 @ 02:27 PM EDT

    I feel it..I really do.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    One tangental question.
    Authored by: WhiteFang on Wednesday, October 04 2006 @ 03:54 PM EDT
    From an historical perspective, do there happen to be LST distro repositories
    available on the Internet? I don't imagine the two CD images included with
    "Power Linux" are available as I'm sure there would be copyright
    issues involved.

    It would be interesting to see what Ransome Love's Caldera was starting from.

    ---
    DRM - Degrading, Repulsive, Meanspirited 'Nuff Said.
    "I shouldn't have asked ... "

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    What's the point rally?
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 04 2006 @ 04:21 PM EDT
    Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see what is wrong with Caldera trying
    to get Linux POSIX compliant in 1997.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    On the Copyright Symbol (Circle-C)
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 04 2006 @ 04:31 PM EDT
    from all the other places I've searched - including the .gov sites - the
    inclusion of the copyright symbol does NOT indicate that a work is registered.
    The symbol in this case simply indicates that the work is a protected work.

    I believe PJ may be confusing the Circle-C with the Circle-R. The Circle-R
    (Registered Trademark symbol) DOES indicate that a logo, pictograph, or other
    distinctive mark is registered with the trademark office.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Caldera Takes on LST Announcement
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 04 2006 @ 05:24 PM EDT
    Here is the announcement of the beginning of this part of the saga:

    http://olduvai.blu.org/pipermail/announce/1996-June/000047.html

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Why so down on poor Mr. Love?!!?
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 04 2006 @ 05:47 PM EDT
    Having met Ransom Love on more than one occasion. You folks are completely
    off base on your views of him. While many in the community may not have liked
    his bussiness model. (Commerial software on top of Linux.) He was always a big
    supporter of the Linux community. Despite the fact that at time the community
    didn't love him back.

    I suspect the reason you see his name over and over is:
    A)He was the CEO.
    B)If put on the stand he won't do SCO any good.

    Also keep mind most CEOs sign numerous agreement not to bad mouth their former
    company in any way. So SCO would likely sue his ass off if he said anything in
    public. I suspect that if Ransom Love is on a witness list it is IBM's.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Coping with the grief
    Authored by: the_flatlander on Wednesday, October 04 2006 @ 08:39 PM EDT
    To paraphrase:
    We must prepare ourselves for the demise of SCO's claims about ELF, header files, and Streams. Sob. Sob.
    There, there, Ms. Jones, I know it's hard, but try to take some comfort in knowing that this means those claims have moved on to a better place. And just think what you can do with the $699, (soon to be $1500), per CPU that you don't have to send to Ralphie - The second set of charges of multi-million dollar theivery not yet proved in court - Yarro.

    The Flatlander

    Caldera developed and sold Linux? Really? And that counts as estoppel? Ain't the law funny that way?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Caldera OpenLinux2.3 supplied with The Complete IDIOT'S Guide to Linux 2nd edition, (c) 2000
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 04 2006 @ 09:02 PM EDT
    Written by Manuel Alberto Ricart.
    Published in 2000 by Que Alpha Books, a division of Macmillan Computer
    Publishing. ISBN 0-7897-2196-1

    I wonder if we will see these titles:

    Complete Idiot's Guide to Futile Litigation,
    Complete Idiot's Guide to Pretexting,
    Complete Idiot's Guide to Kicking Sleeping Lions,
    Complete Idiot's Guide to Shaking Bee Hives,
    Complete Idiot's Guide to Book Titles?

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Ralf Flaxa's Declaration - as text - What Caldera Knew and When It Knew It
    Authored by: wvhillbilly on Wednesday, October 04 2006 @ 09:13 PM EDT
    ...But this is The End. We must prepare ourselves for the demise of those claims. Sob. Sob.

    Ahh. Do I detect a note of sarcasm here?

    Or is this SCOG doing the sobbing? ;-)

    ---
    What goes around comes around, and the longer it goes the bigger it grows.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    LSB and Monterey
    Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 05 2006 @ 06:10 AM EDT
    And why was Love interested in LSB?

    Well, if you look closely, you'll see that the reason Caldera was interested in LSB was the exact same reason SCO was interested in Project Monterey.

    In both cases (and also in the case of POSIX and the Open Group standards, for example), the reason was that there were too many versions of Unix or Linux (or generally Unix-like systems), and developers didn't want to port to so many different versions. So the vendors decided to make their versions more similar, to make the developers' job easier, and the way to do that was standardisation of some kind or another.

    This story is pretty much as old as the BSD/System V split - that's where the first incompatibilities arose. It's always the same: the differences start out as a way to be better than the other(s), and then people get busy smoothing them over so as to not divide the market so much.

    It happens elsewhere, too. For example, for a while people were developing a large range of different, incompatible networking standards; these days, there's IP, and then there are a fairly small number of also-rans. People developed ISA, and EISA, and MCA, and I can't quite remember the names of Apple's or Sun's board standards, for example; these days, everyone does PCI (but we're already starting different, incompatible PCI extension standards for the next round). Command formats for talking with intelligent peripherals have pretty much standardised to those invented for SCSI all over the place (ATA, SATA, firewire, whatever, all of them mostly use those command formats). XT keyboards, AT keyboards, ADB keyboards - the future is clearly USB keyboards. And so on and so forth.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    What a bloody farce...
    Authored by: garbage on Thursday, October 05 2006 @ 08:13 AM EDT
    I mean really, they have dragged this on for years with _nothing_, nothing!

    They have made an utter mockery of the the system.

    They have conclusively demonstrated that the us legal system is quite simply
    broken.

    Why did the german courts jump on these monkeys _years_ago_ but in the us
    the courts play along with the farce year after year after year...

    I agree with the poster who called it 'undue process'. It certainly is that.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Anybody no Darl's phone number?
    Authored by: garbage on Thursday, October 05 2006 @ 08:18 AM EDT
    I feel like ringing the guy up & saying 'for god's sakes, be a man, admit
    you are
    wrong & let's all go home now.

    It seems like a testament to who samll minded & immature a man he is to keep

    on dragging this out to the bitter end.

    For that matter I think it is incredibly unprofessional & possibly
    malpractice of
    the BS&F people to not call their client & say 'it's a waste of time
    & money, STOP
    NOW'.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
    Comments are owned by the individual posters.

    PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )