On Jan 18, 2009, at 10:05 AM, Richard Dice wrote:
Thank you for pointing this out
And thanks for reminding me about that, too. It was in my notes, but I
forgot to mention it. I *was* wondering what the circumstance was with
the Perl-related trademarks the O'Reilly has. But if it's generally:
Basically, the message is:
stay away from using camels.
Well, OK, then :)
I'm going to post the original post I started on this mailing list,
along with the notes added by everyone else and perhaps start with
some visuals, so as to give everyone more things to play around with.
I'll keep everything clean and simple and, release early, release
often :)
Thanks, everyone,
On Jan 18, 2009, at 10:05 AM, Richard Dice wrote:
Thank you for pointing this out. This is a reality I've lived with
for so
long that it didn't even cross my mind to caution others (who
haven't been
so tied up in the legal and organizational aspects of Perl) when
this thread
appeared.
O'Reilly is the only organization that can have trademarks that
incorporate
a camel in reference to the Perl programming language. This
statement is a
first-order approximation, but damn good one. Basically, the
message is:
stay away from using camels.
Cheers,
- Richard
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 12:12 PM, <a...@ippimail.com> wrote:
Justin Simoni
You may have to be careful about the camel imagery; I think
O'Reilly have
a legal lock on camel-related graphics in association with Perl.
Richard
Dice can probably give you more details.
--
Email and shopping with the feelgood factor!
55% of income to good causes. http://www.ippimail.com
