From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76B68BBAF for ; Sun, 8 Mar 2009 09:16:42 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AoQDAFMNs0mD1+WRgWdsb2JhbACVKQEBFiKvJoVSiE2EBQY X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,324,1233529200"; d="scan'208";a="22211339" Received: from alumnus.caltech.edu ([131.215.229.145]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 08 Mar 2009 09:16:41 +0100 Received: from alumnus.caltech.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alumnus.caltech.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id n288G7Yh019111 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 8 Mar 2009 00:16:07 -0800 (PST) Received: (from txr@localhost) by alumnus.caltech.edu (8.13.6/8.12.3/Submit) id n288FigF019105; Sun, 8 Mar 2009 00:15:44 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2009 00:15:44 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200903080815.n288FigF019105@alumnus.caltech.edu> From: Tim Rentsch To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr In-reply-to: (message from Jason Hickey on Fri, 6 Mar 2009 13:14:27 -0800) Subject: Re: Tim Rentsch & The Abscissa Book Reply-To: txr@alumni.caltech.edu References: X--MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X--MailScanner-ID: n288G7Yh019111 X--MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: txr@alumnus.caltech.edu X-Spam: no; 0.00; co-author:01 co-author:01 2009:98 dated:98 19.:98 2007.:98 conducted:98 wrote:01 wrote:01 caml-list:01 short:01 chapters:02 chapters:02 caml:02 caml:02 Dear Caml-list readers: I have just read Jason Hickey's post of 3/6/2009 at the beginning of this thread. Now that Jason has made this a public issue by trying it in the court of public opinion I am forced to give a public response. Jason's letter is false or misleading in important respects, as demonstrated by a letter he himself wrote to my lawyer dated May 19, 2008 [http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~txr/tocpl/misc/jyh-2008_05_19.pdf]. In a prior post, Jason claimed not to have been aware of my book. The truth is he and his publisher have exchanged multiple letters with me and my lawyer for some time, and they have been well aware of my book for roughly the last year, well before it was published. The clearest example is in his own hand. Prof. Hickey's letter of May 19, 2008, is two full pages devoted solely to the subject of my book. Among other things, he stated: "I am pleased that Mr. Rentsch intends to publish a book on Objective Caml based on joint work he did with me." He also stated that his publisher's counsel, Kevin Taylor, had "proposed that both authors simply publish their own books . . ." Jason claims of my book The Objective Caml Programming Language that I wrote only chapters 14, 15, 17, and the Appendix, and that he wrote everything else. That claim is false and Jason knows it. I have said all along that my book is based on the joint work that Jason and I prepared between 2004 and 2007. Jason tries to downplay my role in the joint work, for example his comment about offering co-authorship "on this basis" [for two chapters and an appendix]. In fact what he said was "We have to make you a co-author!", or something very close to that, and sounded more like it was made out of recognition of the amount of work I'd put in, not just specific writings. Furthermore most of the work I did in other parts of the book was done after that point, after being made a co-author. It appears that Jason is guilty of doing himself what he's accusing me of doing, making use of material developed for our joint work without my permission. I've just conducted a very cursory examination of Jason's online manuscript. For example, the earlier course notes had no exercises. A comparison of exercises in his manuscript and my book will show similarities in many cases, too many to be just coincidental. I have not received any communication either asking me for permission or attempting to make arrangements so I could be paid royalties that I'm entitled to for use of material developed for the joint work. Jason intimates in one posting that my manuscript was deliberately withheld from him. The truth is an offer was made in a letter sent in May of 2008 to Kevin Taylor, with a cc to Jason, to provide a copy of that manuscript. No request for any such copy has been received. Jason implies in one posting that I asked CUP to delay publication of his manuscript until after I reviewed it. I never made any such request, nor did I expect that there would be any delay of this kind. I did ask for an advance copy of the manuscript, but on later advice decided not to look at it at all, and this decision was communicated to CUP by letter in May of 2008 (the same letter mentioned above, cc'ed to Jason). Since that time I'm not aware of any attempt, either by Jason or by CUP, to try to get any kind of resolution on the matter or to ask about any possibly missing communication. There are indications on reddit.com that Jason may be trying to add to a set of comments accusing me of plagiarism; the charges of plagiarism are absolutely false, and Jason knows it. The comments above reflect just some of the ways that Jason's remarks are false or misleading; I haven't tried to tabulate them all. I have, to the best of my understanding, a legal right to use material from the joint work in the way that I'm using it. Furthermore I invite everyone to compare my book against the earlier 2002 course notes, not just at the level of words or phrases, but entire sections and chapters, and see for themselves the extent to which I contributed not just changes but value to all parts of any earlier material. At the end of his posting Jason makes some self-serving statements related to further public discussion, moving on, etc. If he'd really felt that way he could have written a short notice saying that he would be taking the matter up with his publisher and would let people know how things turned out. Of course, what he really wants is to have it both ways -- make public accusations and then stop any further public discussion. I encourage _all_ readers to gather facts on this issue on _both_ sides, and convey any opinions to Jason's editor, and also to appropriate public forums -- I don't know where else Jason might have posted. I encourage reviewers of _both_ books to report all the facts available to them, and for anyone who would recommend Jason's book to consider whether they want to be associated with the kind of intellectual dishonesty he has displayed in his postings here.