Open Letter to Tim O’Reilly to Free the Perl Camel
I've been thinking about this letter for a while now.
There was a time (an eternity in IT age) where you did a lot for Perl and I thank you so much for this
But time passed and Perl has lost its value to your eyes.
Thanks to you Perl inherited a logo: the camel But because of you, Perl actually never had a logo at all
Over the years, you never ever made the Perl camel open enough for us (Perl community) to freely use or modify. Consequently, we are in a very uncomfortable position.
Let's just use a new logo, what's the point?
No, it's not that simple and we were never able to achieve this.
As of today, we are torn between:
- Your camel that we are not allowed to use
- A shadowed camel derived from your camel, still problematic even if it's de facto used everywhere
- An onion that is not Perl but foundation logo (and not even free to use/modify)
- A raptor that some people don't like or don't recognize well the association
- Various other attempts
It's a long standing problem with numerous discussions, attempts and continuous frustrations for us.
Now, the thing is, only YOU can fix this
And it's time.
So I'm asking solemnly, free the Perl camel! And do it with a nice and clear license.
#FreeThePerlCamel
Please.
Thibault
Notes: it was sent to permissions@oreilly.com, I don't have an answer yet
57 comments
[ 1.8 ms ] story [ 107 ms ] threadI'm not sure I understand the licensing issue - if the camel graphic came from one of these books, would it not be possible to license it direct from the pictorial library (possibly no licensing required, just a royalty free deal from buying the book)?
The camel picture used on the original book cover is in Animals 1,419 Copyright Free Illustrations of Mammals, Birds, Fish, Insects, etc. by Jim Harter: https://www.doverbooks.co.uk/animals-1419-copyright-free-ill... (image 241).
doesn’t really line up with
>A shadowed camel derived from your camel, still problematic even if it's de facto used everywhere
That's using a camel, but it's not anything like the O'Reilly camel and that in itself is what some people find a bit confusing.
See also https://neilb.org/2020/12/04/perl-and-camels.html and https://dev.to/thibaultduponchelle/the-perl-complex-topic-of...
The logo situation is a mess and I don't think it's actually anyone's fault. However, if O'Reilly could clearly assign rights to the camel for use as an official Perl logo, I think this would solve a real branding problem and make things a lot less confusing.
As an example, the Python, PHP and Java logos are very distinctive in their own ways, and when you're sifting through YouTube tutorials as a beginner, seeing the logos pop up in thumbnails can help you spot material that's relevant to your learning.
edit: php logo from 2000 is another notable early example
1. Shouldn't we aspire to let the community themselves decide if their passions would be furthered by a recognizable visual identity, and not impose our perspective on them in a patronizing way?
2. Your statement mostly conveys that you haven't learned much about the power of branding in general. A logo is not a brand, but often stands as the most recognizable avatar of a brand. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sO4te2QNsHY
It's nearly impossible to develop a healthy brand that doesn't have a recognizable logo. And you need a healthy brand to be successful in marketing that brand.
I happen to believe that OSS contributors deserve to see that their projects put their best foot forward so that as many people can benefit as possible. Since I know Tim O'Reilly wants this as well, hopefully he'll be happy to sign off on this request.
Is Proctor&Gamble a healthy brand? Is its logo recognizable, were the big "P&G" not it?
(As another example, I recognize the Nestlé name brand, but don't recognize its logo with the three birds and the nest.)
If it isn't a healthy brand, how would you describe the Proctor&Gamble brand? Unhealthy? And how would changing that brand improve things?
I ask because it seems that healthy retail brand ends up with a recognizable logo in large part simply because so many people know it, making it hard to disentangle how important the logo is vs. the slogan, the product name, its effectiveness, and other properties.
And it would seem those retail brand principles apply less to, for example, multi-national conglomerates.
To be clear, that doesn't mean a recognized logo won't help a programming language advocacy and support group. I'm instead pointing out that I can think of quite a few seemingly healthy brands with forgettable logos, while you suggest that's nearly impossible.
(To be doubly clear, it's nearly impossible to establish a well-known brand in the first place, either with or without a recognizable logo.)
By defacto really, because that is what I am used to seeing online.
> Logos are trademarks of companies
At least in the US, that's incorrect. Private persons people may hold trademarks too.
That trademark my be registered with the federal or state government, but even without registration there's still a common law trademark.
If you start selling artisan lemonade from your sidewalk (make sure you have the proper licenses first!) and make a distinctive logo for it, then - poof! - that logo is a common law trademark. No paperwork needed.
Even if it's the trademark is not enforced, it's still a logo. A 5th grade sports team can decide to call themselves "The Flying Stone", make a design with a stone bearing wings, and put it on their shirts. Poof, that's a logo.
> national flags aren't language logos
... why would they? The US doesn't have an official language. Many countries have multiple official languages. Most languages don't have a strong association with a single country.
And Esperanto has had a flag for over a century, representing supranational solidarity.
(And yes, ‘single implementation must be interpreted a bit loosely. Python qualifies, for example)
What's the logo for Esperanto?
- They can license it out for free
- They can just lose it.
https://web.archive.org/web/20180425080044/http://archive.or...
The Perl Camel Usage and Trademark Information
As most of you probably know, O'Reilly started putting animal images on the covers of our books about thirteen years ago. To millions of readers, the animals mean O'Reilly. They've become our signature "trade dress." We've also trademarked the association between particular animals and the subject of their books. After all, the only reason that people think of camels in association with Perl is because we used a camel on the cover of Programming Perl.
We recognize that things do get more complicated, though, when an image like the camel is so widely known that it comes to symbolize not just our products but also the entire Perl language. This is a good thing, and we want it to continue. But trademark law is sticky on this point. If a trademark isn't "protected" (by letters asking people not to use it, or by licenses that allow them to use it only in specific ways), it gets into the public domain and loses its protected status. If this happened, anyone could use the camel without restriction, including in ways that were detrimental to the language. For example, you might imagine a company creating a Perl-compatible language, branding it with a camel, and pushing it as the "official Perl" in an attempt to drive Larry Wall's Perl out of existence.
Another important issue is that a brand is strong in proportion to two things: its ubiquity and its distinctiveness. It's important that, just as we want one version of Perl (so we don't have the fragmentation that was the downfall of UNIX), we have one symbol for Perl. To protect the integrity and impact of that symbol, we need to maintain some artistic control over what kinds of camel images are used. We believe that "one camel" will strengthen the overall Perl brand.
In short, we're walking a fine line, trying to make the camel as available as possible as a symbol for Perl while protecting it as a trademark. So, here's our policy on using the camel image:
Non-commercial use
We will license the camel image widely for open source products and non-commercial sites related to Perl, requiring only an acknowledgement of its trademark status and a link to www.perl.com. To request the camel artwork, please send email to permissions@oreilly.com, indicating where, how, and for what purpose you plan to use the image. Please note that we generally do not allow alterations of the Perl camel artwork.
Some non-commercial sites currently using the Perl camel:
(snipped)
We also offer the Programming Republic of Perl logo for some non-commercial sites. Feel free to download these logos for use on your pages. Please make the logo a link to www.perl.com.
Some sites using the Programming Republic of Perl logo:
(snipped)
We may also license the Perl camel image for some commercial products and sites related to Perl. To inquire about the use of a camel image on any commercial product or site, please send email to permissions@oreilly.com with a description of the product or web site, indicating where and how you'd like to use the camel.
We've also created "Powered by Perl" buttons that any site using Perl may use on web pages. Feel free to download and use these buttons. Please make the buttons link to www.perl.com.
And the Camel FAQ:
https://web.archive.org/web/20180123132933/http://archive.or...
Q: So are you saying that O...
I'm an O'Reilly author, so I'm biased.
I feel like O'Reilly (the owner) and O'Reilly (the publisher) have both done so much for the tech community that I'm inclined to trust their interpretation and motives.
I still love Perl. It was my first love.
This reproduction can easily pass for fair use as it's quoting the answer to the question that only O'Reilly can answer authoritatively. Secondly O'Reilly is not compelled to bring a complaint against such use, unlike for example the protection of trademarks.
Unfortunately infringement of intellectual property rights are settled through complaints - so best practice is to never duplicate unless clearly falling into exceptions such as fair use, the TEACH act or if being used in face-to-face instructional settings.
If you do a mental exercise to think of all the ways that you see the content of others reproduced in other places, you can begin to appreciate the greyness of IP laws. (E.g. Google crawling then quoting the header lines from a website, news articles quoting documents, the public citing of evidence of harm and so on.)
I'm not saying the letter is wrong (or right) but I would lean toward skepticism toward the letter because it doesn't seem to recognize the history and the full situation, including the protection afforded the logo by O'Reilly, and it doesn't seem clear on how making the logo "free" will in any sense protect the logo and the community (or O'Reilly, which has a stake as the originator of the camel in this case). You might wonder, why should a logo need "protecting"? The short answer is that various "bad" things like loss of trust can happen, if the logo becomes associated with just anything that just anybody wants to associate it with for their own non-aligned purposes, and that loss of trust can detract from typical goals like having people interested in the project, interested in using and maintaining it, etc.
So I wouldn't start out with a default assumption that O'Reilly should give any letter writer anything they want. But certainly they should be open to a dialog if the proposal seems well thought out (but the current one is a bit thin, imho).