It is not that they are cowering in fear of you specifically. However, you contributed to an environment where some open source developers cower in fear of any patent holder.
I personally think the objections of some of the exiv2 maintainers are going overboard, because there’s evidence that the part of the MPEG-4 standard they would be required to implement to support CR3 metadata is NOT actually patented (AOM’s use of the MPEG-4 container format hints at this), but it’s understandable given the behavior of some intellectual property holders in the past why people would be gun-shy of any part of a standards set that is notorious for having patents leveraged against it. It does not help that at least two downstream distribution maintainers indicated that even the possibility of a patent threat would cause them serious issues. All of these combined with the current maintainer transition of exvi2 (Robin announced at least a year ago his intent to retire early this year as lead exiv2 maintainer, leading to an understandable reluctance to override the concerns of his potential replacements) have delayed ISOBMFF metadata support in exiv2.
Also, your assertion that “compressed RAW is lossy” is false. Lossless compression algorithms exist, and that was one of the big changes in CR3. It started using a lossless compression algorithm that appeared to be kinda-sorta similar to HEVC (HEVC does have lossless modes!) but also clearly not actually interoperable. It’s vastly different than the most well known Huffman-based lossless RAW compression methods out there such as DNG’s compression scheme.
Another contributing factor was the way in which the libraw open source project is run - it’s run in a manner similar to how Google runs AOSP, where massive amounts of development are done behind closed doors and it’s very difficult for external contributors to participate, which slowed everything down.