Eye on Winer

Dave’s on a rant recently about how poor Dave’s not so welcome in all the places he thinks he should be.

I was talking with Mike Arrington yesterday about Microsoft’s upcoming web conference, Mix 06. The same people who spoke at Etech are speaking there, as at SXSW, even though the Microsoft people told me straight out that it was going to be Microsoft people talking to developers (which made me think it was not a conference I wanted to go to). Then last week I found out that lots of people I know who don’t work at Microsoft are speaking there, and to my surprise, that includes Mike.

Hmmm lots of good reasons for this. Perhaps there will be people at the conference that want to get work done instead of listening to debates about how Winer’s Way is better? Or then again, perhaps there’s just a desire for those at the conference to learn something. At any rate, Winer goes on to whine:

I did a lot of work for them for free. That’s finished, not going to be doing any more of that. So embarassing.

Them is Microsoft in this case. Now take a moment and think about this. There are a few possibilities. One of the first is that narcissistic Dave is going around giving away his services to multi-billion dollar companies just to see his name on their marquis. Another might be the possibility that there are contracts between Microsoft and Scripting News or even Dave’s former haunts of Userland that he’s working under and not being paid. It doesn’t take much of a business person to figure out that this is a bad deal. Indeed maybe this is what is So embarrassing. One would think, however, if this were the case that Winer would spread as much Microsoft venom as he does with the Adam Curry tirades. Then again, perhaps it’s easier to spread rumor and innuendo with an entity that is not so well defended as the Redmond behemoth.

Perhaps, however, the best approach is to apply Ochham’s Razor to the situation. In that view then Dave really isn’t working for free for anybody. Instead Winer’s doing what he wants, when he wants and as he so often writes with free ideas on his blog, sharing freely with other people who just happen to be smart people finding creative ways to build on the ideas of the past. Somehow a much simpler proposition. The saddest part of all is that Dave with his good ideas could get invited to many more conferences if he managed to work well with others and recognized his role more appropriately. Imagine for a moment the scene presented if Shakespeare showed up at the Academy Awards and bellowed before each award that he actually wrote that story before anybody else and they should be giving him credit for the idea that upon which he “worked for free”.

Those Bastards the blog absolutely nails the Dave Winer situation:

You can keep repeating that mantra that it’s hard to be you, and I’ll let you in a clue: I would love to be in your situation. Have enough money to do your own thing, the respect of a lot of people, your name all over a key internet technology. And all you do is shit on people. That’s not right, dude.

To quote Instapundit: Indeed.

Why was I not shocked when when a reader pointed me toward’s Scoble’s blog?

Because, unsurprisingly, he’s one of the many who has yet to realize that Dave is only friends with people who are of some benefit to him, and Scoble is one of the more loyal apologists for Winer’s ass-holery.

So, why do I wish I hadn’t read blogs today? Cause I saw a lynch mob beating up my friend, Dave Winer. As I read their posts (and the even more vile comments on those posts) I realize that this isn’t the blogosphere I signed up for.

Although it’s one I helped create.

No one kept their head — the knives and guns just came out in this street fight. No one called both sides and did some real reporting. No one added any value. Built anyone up. No, all I read was “Dave’s an a++hole” kind of comments.

Actually, Robert, this is the blogosphere you signed up for. Simply change the situation a bit, and instead of talking about your buddy, let’s pretend we’re talking about operating systems. Now you’ve got two sides who believe something strongly and are disagreeing about it on the internet. Would it be better if everyone agreed with Winer? Probably for the two of you.

Here’s the funny thing about when two bloggers have a fight: you don’t need to call sources. You might get more info that way, but for all intents and purposes, their comments have been made. Besides, does anyone really think Dave would answer questions about this? Would he answer them honestly? There’s a reason he hasn’t posted about it. It’s either because a) he’s chicken shit, b) his attorney advised him to keep his trap shut, or c) he has the good sense to not fuck up his own case by creating evidence.

Bottom line here, I doubt people were asking Scoble to “join the lynch mob” they were probably just asking him to take a stance against someone using intimidation tactics to manipulate someone who couldn’t be manipulated in any other way.

But Scoble has made his stand: as long as it’s Winer, he’s a-okay.

There’s a shocker.

It seems that Rogers Cadenhead’s “Winer Moment” continues full-swing. There are two points at issue here, and I’m no attorney, but I have some education and experience in this arena. The following analysis is given assuming the attorney’s letter is factually accurate and that Rogers’s response is also factually accurate:

1. The $5,000 paid for programming and hosting of “Share Your OPML” : Rogers will likely have to give back at least part of the $5,000. He was to get $10,000 and a 1/3 share of ownership in consideration for a) coding, b) hosting, and c) managing feeds.scriptingnews.com. I presume that he never got to (c). I presume that (b) has been going on since the inception of the idea and further that (a) was probably half-done. The the parts of (a) and (b) that Rogers performed in reliance on the verbal contract (despite the disclaimer of needing the contract in writing) will likely be unrecoverable from Rogers. What portion this is will be a question for a judge or jury. It would make sense, then, for the court to also pay Rogers for his 1/3 share and make a clean break of the situation. Of course, in this case, Rogers has to give dave the code that’s already written. Easier for everyone would be if Rogers just give Dave his five grand back.

2. The second issue is this talk of violation of Section 101 (et seq.) of Title 17 of the United States Code. Frankly, I don’t think Dave has a leg here. From §101:

A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.

Based on this definition, as long as Rogers didn’t use Dave’s code, there’s no conceivable way his code is a violation of copyright. The copyright Dave has over the code in question applies only to the code, and not to the methods employed. For example, if Dave writes some code which draws a flower on the screen, he owns a copyright to that code. He doesn’t have any rights to programs which draw flowers on the screen, even if they do them in exactly the same way. Further, he doesn’t even have rights over someone who happens to write exactly the same code, as long as it was actually developed independently.

Since Rogers didn’t copy Dave’s code, and he didn’t create a “derivative work” based on that code, he’s home free. This is likely a tactic to make a settlement more appealing in hopes that he’ll be able to get his $5,000 back, although Winer is a big enough dick to try to ruin someone for no apparent reason.

It won’t work, though.

I can’t help it. This is too easy. Most curious is that he calls it a “roundup” but only links to one site.

At any rate, this needs commenting on:

Some people have characterized my post as a suicide note, and that’s correct, it is a suicide note. Let me explain. There’s a virtual Dave and a real one. Here, you’re reading the virtual one. Some people hate this guy, some people love him. Lots of people invent new features of this guy, that are so different from the real guy that if the real guy met the other people’s version of the virtual guy, he would line up to punch him in the nose too.

Over time, this duality has gotten further off track to the point where people come up to the real guy in restaurants and shake the virtual guy’s hand. People threaten to hurt the virtual guy, and mistakenly hit the real guy. The real guy has serious health issues and has to take care of himself, and everyone who reads this blog knows this, yet they still create huge battles with the guy, and otherwise considerate people stand by and watch and do nothing.

The bottom line of what he’s saying here is this: “I’m not a huge asshole online, you people invented the asshole side of me. And those battles? Those are all you guys. I have nothing to do with them.”

Bollocks. We get impressions of Dave based on what he writes. Real Dave writes those things, but he’s trying to create this duality to perpetuate the “He’s just misunderstood” argument, and give his fanboys another escape from the cognitive dissonance they must feel when they defend him time and time again.

And the guilt-trip over creating huge battles with a guy who has health problems? Repugnant. Honestly. If you’re not healthy enough to get into “battles” on the interent, either a) quit being a raging douche-bag or b) quit playing on the internet. And by (b) I don’t mean “spend weeks talking about quitting”.

Noteworthy:

Ron Jeffries thinks Dave has a girlfriend.

“A EOW Reader” comments on Dave’s “duality” over SOAP.

and “Not A Sycophant” comments on Dave’s manipulative post.

I’ve gotten several emails over the past few days asking why I haven’t commented on Dave’s threat to quit blogging

The reason for having ignored it thus far is two-fold: first, I really think this is just attention-whoring. He’s played this game before, he just likes to see the whole of his sycophancy get all bent out of shape over his departure. He’s done it before. Even if he quits Scripting News now, odds are that he’ll either start blogging somewhere else, or he’ll come back to Scripting News (or both).

The second reason is, frankly, I think he’s right: the blogosphere doesn’t need him (although I’d leave off the ‘anymore’ part).

In closing: we should be so lucky, but we won’t be.

I found this post of Dave’s to be rife with blatant attempts at manipulation. Manipulation who or what I’m not sure.

I heard by reading a bunch of blogs that Tim Bray said some unkind things about me and my work at his Etech presentation. This is what happens when you try to create a monoculture, it has to demonize those who have differing opinions.

What did Bray say about Winer? I looked aruond, and this was the best I could find. If that’s all there is, Dave horribly mischaracterized Bray. Not that this would be new. Especially since the entire post rides on the preceding quoted passage. Is it “unkind” to say that RSS lacks definition in the spec? Maybe, but it’s true. Is it “unkind” to say that RSS is good enough for blogs but not more technical applications?

In XML protocols and formats he’s invested in everything that’s Not-Dave, or tried to (it doesn’t work, my stuff is too pervasive). But that’s why you hear from Tim Bray at his conferences, and not from me. (If I were there, I think Tim would be more of a gentlemen(sic), btw.)

More of Dave’s trademarked modesty. And jealousy. You can tell he’s miffed that nobody wants him to speak at their conferences. (Or, maybe, they’re just worried he’ll fly off the handle like he did at Blog Nashville) I think what Dave means by “Tim would be more of a gentlemen(sic)” is “Tim would kiss my ass”.

I don’t say Ray shouldn’t present at O’Reilly conferences even though they try to erase my work. I know they won’t succeed, by now you’d think even O’Reilly would get that. But I have to object when Microsoft uses my work and free consultation, and then delivers the benefit to O’Reilly. That’s just wrong. I think Microsoft is better than that. I’d love to hear what they have to say about that.

Isn’t it refreshing how any time someone advocates ATOM they’re “trying to erase his work.”

Also, if Dave’s “consultation” is conditioned on not in any way benefiting anyone Dave dislikes, how useful is it? How “free”?

And isn’t most of Dave’s work in the public domain now? Or, at the very least, under a more-or-less open license? How can he qualify its use?

Finally, if those conditions weren’t expressed ahead of his “consultation”, is it really “wrong” for Microsoft to do as they see fit with the advice he gives? (And let’s not fool ourselves, Dave isn’t some benevolent philanthropist going around handing out advice to make the world a better place — he does it because it strokes his ego. Much in the same way being invited to speak at a conference would.)

UPDATE: Because Dave took down his post with no retraction or apology, here’s the full-text:

I heard by reading a bunch of blogs that Tim Bray said some unkind things about me and my work at his Etech presentation. This is what happens when you try to create a monoculture, it has to demonize those who have differing opinions. That’s why O’Reilly conferences so lack substance, because they always only present one side, the side that Tim has invested in. In XML protocols and formats he’s invested in everything that’s Not-Dave, or tried to (it doesn’t work, my stuff is too pervasive). But that’s why you hear from Tim Bray at his conferences, and not from me. (If I were there, I think Tim would be more of a gentlemen, btw.)

It’s unfortunate when this monoculture spreads to others, probably innocently, without them understanding that’s what’s happening. Last night I had a phone talk with Frank X. Shaw, at Waggener-Edstrom, Microsoft’s public relations firm. I explained that the program at their Mix 06 conference reads like the program at an O’Reilly conference. This is too bad, because Microsoft has its own independent view of this stuff and are not captive to O’Reilly’s limited thinking, but probably unknowingly, they have limited their conference to the O’Reilly view.

I also sent an email to Ray Ozzie, explaining that we have to get better at working together. I don’t say Ray shouldn’t present at O’Reilly conferences even though they try to erase my work. I know they won’t succeed, by now you’d think even O’Reilly would get that. But I have to object when Microsoft uses my work and free consultation, and then delivers the benefit to O’Reilly. That’s just wrong. I think Microsoft is better than that. I’d love to hear what they have to say about that.

~EOW

Dave talks about how “mean spirited” the blogosphere is becomming:

Private Lives, March 1955: “Joan Crawford’s power — her abuse of people who refuse to bow to her, her control of the casting, direction, and production of her pictures, is the disgrace of Hollywood.”

In case you think the blogosphere is mean-spirited, we still have a ways to go before we match Hollywood.

…we might have a ways to go, but Dave is leading the charge.