From: Dave Winer (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Sep 13 2000 - 09:05:13 PDT
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.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Brickley" <Daniel.Brickley@bristol.ac.uk>
To: "Dave Winer" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: "FoRK" <FoRK@xent.com>; "Tim O'Reilly" <email@example.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 9:03 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: http://www.egroups.com/message/decentralization/326
> 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,
> 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
> > 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
> > with Dave Sims and Andy Oram at O'Reilly about them. They are involved
> > corporate way on RSS. They've run ads, had corporate officers doing
> > "journalism" where only their side was presented. They worked in private
> > a public spec, and then presented it as a fait accompli, on their
> > 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
> > 25 years. I'm tired of receiving these private threats. Tim, the ball's
> > your court, do your best to smear me. And at the same time let's take a
> > hard look at exactly what O'Reilly is versus what you say it is.
> > Dave
> > ----- 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
> > > 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
> > > 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
> > > 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 - 09:14:47 PDT