From: Dan Brickley (Daniel.Brickley@bristol.ac.uk)
Date: Wed Sep 13 2000 - 09:03:04 PDT
Recently I have had a standard that I co-authored stolen by a big name,
totally brazen, and I've said Fuck This many times in the
last few weeks, and it hasn't done any good.
To be clear, are you claiming that OReilly (plus various of their naive
pawns such as myself) have stolen RSS, and that you're a co-author of the
intellectual work that was stolen?
If that's the case, please circulate to FoRK a list of technical
innovations in "your" RSS v0.91 that are anything more than trivial
elaborations on the 9th March 1997 Channel Definition Format
(CDF) specification, as submitted by Microsoft to the W3C,
Accusations of theft are a big deal. We should help you get to the
bottom of this...
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Dave Winer wrote:
> This is the kind of threatening email I get from Tim O'Reilly. One of dozens
> I've received over the years. I've warned Tim over and over, that if he
> wants to make threats, make them in public for all to see.
> They are serious integrity issues at O'Reilly. I've been emailing privately
> with Dave Sims and Andy Oram at O'Reilly about them. They are involved in a
> corporate way on RSS. They've run ads, had corporate officers doing
> "journalism" where only their side was presented. They worked in private on
> a public spec, and then presented it as a fait accompli, on their corporate
> website. The line betw journalism and corporate affairs at O'Reilly is
> pretty murky. That Tim claims that O'Reilly is not involved in RSS at a
> corporate level is a ludicrous thing.
> I have no idea what's going on over there, but Tim is one of the most
> personally offensive people I've ever met in the software industry, in over
> 25 years. I'm tired of receiving these private threats. Tim, the ball's in
> your court, do your best to smear me. And at the same time let's take a deep
> hard look at exactly what O'Reilly is versus what you say it is.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tim O'Reilly" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: <email@example.com>
> Cc: "tim" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 7:43 AM
> Subject: http://www.egroups.com/message/decentralization/326
> > Dave,
> > I've told you again and again that your conflict over RSS is not an
> > O'Reilly thing, as have the participants, yet you keep making the
> > accusation. When we exclude you from things in future, just make a note
> > of this as the reason why. And be sure that I will do the same. I'm
> > assembling a list of all the false claims you've made against us, and at
> > some point, if you keep this up, it will be published as an expose.
> > When people see both sides, you will lose even more credibility than you
> > have already. You're lucky that I haven't been waging the kind of PR
> > campaign against you that you've been waging against us.
> > Now, you might say that O'Reilly wasn't mentioned by name here. But
> > it's clear enough who you mean, and as a result, someone outside the
> > conflict forwarded the message to me.
> > Please stop. Or I'll go public on what you're doing.
> > --
> > Tim O'Reilly @ O'Reilly & Associates, Inc.
> > 101 Morris Street, Sebastopol, CA 95472
> > +1 707-829-0515, FAX +1 707-829-0104
> > email@example.com, http://www.oreilly.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Sep 13 2000 - 09:09:27 PDT