Jon Orwant (lists.advocacy):
> > In trying to place an ad in the Perl Journal, our company had to get
> > permission from multiple O'Reilly personnel, who didn't want us saying
> > anything negative about O'Reilly or ActiveState products (even put nicely).
> > We couldn't even use a camel or gecko, which, since they are tightly
> > controlled trademarks, now seem inadequate as "mascots". Pass over O'Reilly
> > entirely, and anything associated with it. They are good advocates, but only
> > if you don't compete with them.
>
>This is a little deceptive, David. You submitted an ad to TPJ, which
>is fine. But then you formatted it to look exactly like an article,
>named yourself the author, and referred to future articles that you'd
>be writing. That's not fine.
Watching O'Reilly folk fall over themselves on this one is always fun.
I'm now going to give you a chance to address the points, rather than
personally attack the poster. I hope you take it.
* O'Reilly clamps down very strongly on criticism of itself.
David Grove has just been unsubscribed. I won't miss him one bit,
but it's interesting that it was for criticism of O'Reilly. No,
don't jump on this. This is just an example. O'Reilly *does* clamp
down very strongly on criticism of itself. (Let's see the drones fly
in now...)
* O'Reilly places *ridiculously* unfair constraints on the use
of traditional Perl mascots. It's impossible to use a camel in
conjunction with Perl now. I know - our Perl Mongers have tried.
This *seriously* upsets me.
Amazingly, I agree with David. They are good advocates, but only if you
don't compete with them.
--
As the saying goes, if you give a man a fish, he eats for a day. If you
teach him to grep for fish, he'll leave you alone all weekend. If you
encourage him to beg for fish, pretty soon c.l.p.misc will smell like a
three-week-dead trout.-- Tom Phoenix, c.l.p.misc.
