From: Dave Winer (dave@userland.com)
Date: Wed Sep 13 2000 - 10:35:40 PDT
Dan here's what was stolen.
Before the namegrab I had some influence on and participation in the
evolution of RSS.
After the grab, I have no say in its future. I'm reduced to trying to talk
you out of the namegrab. I've put so many weeks into just doing that. Here's
what it comes down to:
My choice is to accept your version or..?
What if I think it's wrong? What then?
The provocative act was to take the name of something that exists and put it
on something new.
You may not agree, and I don't want to debate all this *yet again* but
that's what I lost in this and it's not fair. I worked hard to get RSS to
where it is now. Lots of months, down the drain. Why? Why do you want me to
go away? What the hell did I ever do to you?
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Brickley" <Daniel.Brickley@bristol.ac.uk>
To: "Dave Winer" <dave@userland.com>
Cc: "Dan Brickley" <Daniel.Brickley@bristol.ac.uk>; "FoRK" <FoRK@xent.com>;
"Tim O'Reilly" <tim@oreilly.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 10:22 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: http://www.egroups.com/message/decentralization/326
>
> On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Dave Winer wrote:
>
> > Look Dan, I don't want to nail you or anyone else. On the
decentralization
>
> You're mad at us because you think we stole your vision and corrupted it.
>
> I'd like you to stop with the accusations of theft. Last I heard from
> you on that topic, you still claimed we were thieves. It'd be really
> nice to hear that retracted.
>
> > list I was responding to a developer, who hearing that Intel was trying
to
> > get in the middle of P2P urged us all, emphatically, to avoid them. I
wanted
> > to let him know that I understood what he was saying, and that it was
> > hopeless, the big companies pretty much get to do what they want.
>
> That's as maybe. Big/small/whatever, you called us thieves. It's time to
> lay all the evidence on the table or find something else to do with all
> this bandwidth.
>
> > I want to go forward peacefully. You just have to trust me on that.
>
> I think we're both argumentative enough (or have short enough attention
> spans) to have this debate on FoRK, clear the air, set the record
> straight, all that good stuff, then "go forward peacefully".
>
> What I don't want is to go forward with dangling accusations of theft
> hanging around. If there's been thievin' going on, we ought to set
> things to rights, find out who took what from whom. If not, let's draw a
> line under this once and for all.
>
> > I want
> > the grab to be retracted. That's all I want. Then no one will have to
argue
> > about whether or not O'Reilly is involved at a corporate level, or if
any
> > stealing took place. I've already posted so many disclaimers on this,
I've
> > run surveys of the users, I have written a lengthy essay on this, no one
has
> > responded as far as I know. I am angry and hurt by this whole series of
> > events.
> >
> > You can go back to CDF and OSD if you want, but I don't want to,
>
> Why don't you want to go back to CDF and OSD?
>
> > it's really
> > unfortunate that the response has been the way it has. It never should
have
> > happened in the first place. The new spec is radically different from
the
> > old one.
>
> I'd like to better understand your notion of 'radically different'.
>
> For example, is RSS0.91/scriptingNews 'radically different' from CDF?
>
>
> > It's always kind to let the other spec and people who have invested
> > have a chance to go forward or if it was meant to rest in peace, let it
do
> > that too.
> >
> > That's the issue I have raised, and I would appreciate if that were
dealt
> > with before we start wandering into other areas.
>
> I agree, we shouldn't go wandering off into other topics before dealing
> with the core issue. Which, from where I'm standing, is that you accused
> us of theft. So, asking again: what exactly did we steal? Was it some
> technological innovation or the bandwagon/brand? I'm looking for a
> bulleted list here: which of your ideas are we claiming to be our ideas?
>
> Dan
>
> > Dave
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Dan Brickley" <Daniel.Brickley@bristol.ac.uk>
> > To: "Dave Winer" <dave@userland.com>
> > Cc: "FoRK" <FoRK@xent.com>; "Tim O'Reilly" <tim@oreilly.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 9:32 AM
> > Subject: Re: Fw: http://www.egroups.com/message/decentralization/326
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Ok, so you think we stole it.
> > >
> > > Next step is to work out what exactly we stole. Was it the brandnamed
> > > bandwagon or any substantive technical contribution? For this, I think
a
> > > comparison with similar specs such as CDF is going to prove critical.
If
> > > we're going to be nailed for stealing this, FoRKsters are going to
have
> > > to help us figure out what exactly was stolen...
> > >
> > > To help with this I've put examples of RSS 0.91, CDF and scriptingNews
> > > formats in
> > http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/discovery/2000/08/rss/forked/forked.txt
> > >
> > > FWIW I'm all in favour of swearing, and on understanding disputes
> > > through context and connections...
> > >
> > > --danbri
> > >
> > > On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, Dave Winer wrote:
> > >
> > > > Good! I welcome help. BTW, as with all email list posts, a sense of
> > context
> > > > will help you understand what I was saying. I know it's true that
I've
> > said
> > > > "Fuck this" many times. I did co-author the spec. Was it stolen?
Well,
> > > > that's my opinion, that's certainly how it appears from my pov. As
they
> > say,
> > > > your mileage may vary.
> > > >
> > > > And which is "worse" -- doing the stealing, or saying it was stolen?
Tim
> > is
> > > > my personal thought policeman. He's always reading the worst into my
> > posts,
> > > > never getting the context right, and attacking with incomplete
> > information.
> > > > I wish some independent person, at O'Reilly or elsewhere would look
into
> > his
> > > > assertions without prejudice. It would be a relief to me not to be
the
> > only
> > > > one listening to his "arguments".
> > > >
> > > > Re movement in RSS, sometimes specs freeze. In this case the people
who
> > > > authored "RSS 1.0" certainly played their part in freezing RSS. No
blame
> > is
> > > > being laid there, by me, to the others; hopefully the same can be
said
> > for
> > > > Tim and Company. I tried to get it moving in June, in response to a
> > request
> > > > from Dale Dougherty of all people. Somewhere along the line they
shifted
> > > > gears and went to work in private on the Namespaces+RDF proposal.
> > > >
> > > > Dave
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Dan Brickley" <Daniel.Brickley@bristol.ac.uk>
> > > > To: "Dave Winer" <dave@userland.com>
> > > > Cc: "FoRK" <FoRK@xent.com>; "Tim O'Reilly" <tim@oreilly.com>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 9:03 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: Fw: http://www.egroups.com/message/decentralization/326
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Dave,
> > > > >
> > > > > In http://www.egroups.com/message/decentralization/326
> > > > >
> > > > > you say:
> > > > > [[
> > > > > 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,
> > > > > http://www.w3.org/Submission/1997/2/Overview.html
> > > > > http://www.w3.org/TR/NOTE-CDFsubmit.html
> > > > >
> > > > > Accusations of theft are a big deal. We should help you get to the
> > > > > bottom of this...
> > > > >
> > > > > Dan
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dave
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "Tim O'Reilly" <tim@oreilly.com>
> > > > > > To: <dave@userland.com>
> > > > > > Cc: "tim" <tim@oreilly.com>
> > > > > > 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
> > > > > > > tim@oreilly.com, http://www.oreilly.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Sep 13 2000 - 10:45:18 PDT