Tim O’Reilly’s Web 2.0 Heresy
From TechMeme and many other places comes the news that O’Reilly has trademarked the term “Web 2.0″ and has sent a cease-and-desist letter to IT@Cork, a small non-profit networking organization for IT professionals, which has been planning a Web 2.0 half-day conference for some months now. I have to admit, I find both parts of the story, the trademark and the letter, inexcusable. [UPDATE: It’s actually CMP that’s responsible for both legal actions. But as I point out in the comments below, O’Reilly has been acting as the shepherd of this meme, and should at least have told CMP to call off the dogs.]
Tim O’Reilly may have been in the room when the Web 2.0 meme got started, but everything it stands for, according to him, would argue against trademarking the term. In his September 2005 paper, What is Web 2.0?, he ventures that “you can visualize Web 2.0 as a set of principles and practices that tie together a veritable solar system of sites that demonstrate some or all of those principles, at a varying distance from that core.”
Unfortunately, O’Reilly’s move contravenes most of the principles he sets out in that paper, stuff like “Trust your users,” or “Architecture of Participation,” or “Hackability,” or “Software that gets better the more people use it,” or especially “Some rights reserved.” Web 2.0 is about inclusion and decentralized development (among other things). Trademark is, by legal definition, about exclusion, and about retaining control of an idea rather than welcoming the public to make use of it.
In his own damn blog (which, it must be pointed out, is published under a Creative Commons license), O’Reilly writes even today that “the best way to make yourself Web 2.0 is actually to expose your data in ways that let other people re-use it.” A concept is not data, to be sure, but a cease-and-desist letter is not commonly thought of as a document that encourages other people to make use of something.
Disappointing, to say the least.
Feeds
[…] If you go to OSCON this summer, say hi to Tim O’Reilly. And (assuming this article is accurate) give him a good smack upside the head for trademarking ‘Web 2.0′ and cease-and-desisting people over it. Yup. To quote the article linked: In his own damn blog (which, it must be pointed out, is published under a Creative Commons license), O’Reilly writes even today that “the best way to make yourself Web 2.0 is actually to expose your data in ways that let other people re-use it.” A concept is not data, to be sure, but a cease-and-desist letter is not commonly thought of as a document that encourages other people to make use of something. […]
Screw the Patent, Move on to Web 4.0…
From Tom Raftery’s IT Views:
“IT@Cork is a not-for-profit networking organisation for IT professionals. IT@Cork organises regular information and networking events which are free for its members.
One of these events - the upcoming Web 2.0…
This is CMP’s doing, not O’Reilly’s. Next time, read the fine print before opening fire. See my blog for the story.
Right you are, Liam. But as Rick points out, it’s hard to imagine that O’Reilly Media and/or Tim himself aren’t party to these proceedings. They’re legally separate, of course, but O’Reilly has been acting as the guardian of this meme and if nothing else should have told CMP to call off the dogs.
Wonder if this is why wired did that article on crowdsourcing.
You probably want to repost this blog entry, Mark. You’re going to get nothing but grief. I’m sure Tim wouldn’t stand for this getting trademarked and is as pissed off as all of us.
i retract. looks like oreilly is very much involved in this insansity.
woah! this is a massive cockup.
http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/05/controversy_about_our_web_20_s.html
let’s just call it crowdsourcing.
and stop buying oreilly books. heh.
I beg your pardon, Mark; it is O’Reilly’s blunder. I couldn’t imagine they could be so foolish. Fire away.
And these are the same guys who go on about open source and anti-IP ownership (of the wrong kind). Of course, their business profits from open source and certain weaknesses in IP ownership. After all, if you package a book with an open source app on disk, your in the distribution business and you don’t have to pay the author any royalties.
The flip side of this, of course, is IBM, who knows that they will win more jobs selling services to “finish” an open source app than the developer or other small consulting shop.
2.0 is dead! Long live the 3.D!
It is disapointing. Best thing to do is support the Cork lads now and so help anyone else wanting to use Web 2.0 in the future.
Web 2.0 Controversy; Gunfire at U.S. Capitol: Millions could give a shit less…
Karma’s a bitch.
Sounds of Gunfire at Capitol Complex. Although, it is amusing the Californian is all ‘eh prolly balloons popping or a backfiring car’ … We got Compton and East Palo Alto. Settle down, white people.
In other news, you can se…