22 Apr
2012
22 Apr
'12
11:40 a.m.
On Sun, April 22, 2012 11:17 am, Robin Gareus wrote:
Perhaps Jorn can provide the link?
FWIW, the conference site in question is _not_ hosted on linuxaudio.org.
we do link and proxy-redirect to the site which is hosted at TU-Berlin.
we do keep a mirror of it - just in case - because we deem the content
(papers, proceedings) valuable.
I was not aware of the mirror but that is pretty funny really.
No, the TU-Berlin has taken funds. linuxaudio.org offered free-hosting
for the event.
Ok, so it was fine for TU-Berlin to present copious amounts of advertising
in exchange for sponsorship funds but linuxaudio.org is supposed to do
everything on a volunteer basis because of goodwill?
--
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd
On 04/22/2012 04:34 AM, Patrick Shirkey wrote:
So it's not advertising but it is a grey area and people could be confused
about it? Promoting other companies and organisations is a form of
marketing. That it was not directly paid for does not make it any less of
a promotion.
On Sun, April 22, 2012 12:09 am, Robin Gareus wrote:
again: it is not advertising. We do link to sites that support the cause
- and usually do so using <a rel="external"> which - to some extend -
defeats SEO. we're also free to remove the links if we wish to do so.
Certainly it's not a black/white issue. The boundary between
referencing, thanking and advertising is a gray area.
nitpicking: the contributions were are also _not for advertising_, but
for _supporting the conference_. - From the contacts that I know they
were paid using HR and/or Support budget - not advertisement-budget -
of
the companies in question.
So advertising is acceptable as long as it is not actually paid for? We try hard to maintain a reasonable approach. e.g.
avoid user-tracking,
don't agree to any obligations, maintain freedom about content and links
to 3rd parties that we post and apply common-sense instead of hard policy.
This is an interesting way to explain things.
Perhaps this paragraph above could become the official advertising policy
for LAO so that we can all know where we stand. The knee jerk reaction so
far does not provide a professional minded approach to the issue.
If anything
people were very happy with that association and have even gone so far
as
to publish the keynote from the director of Ableton explaining why he
*will never support* a Linux version of Ableton Live.
[citation needed]
I'm curious. I've been at LAC'07 and while I remember a panel
discussion, I don't recall a keynote with that message.
Perhaps keynote was the incorrect term. However as the conference was
almost entirely "sponsored" by Ableton and the director of Ableton made
a
speech where he explained very clearly his reasons for not wanting a
Linux
version of Ableton Live it would appear to have the weight of a keynote
speech. Anyway why is this bad? It's good to know the POV
of others -
especially
if you do not agree with them.
I'm not saying it was "bad". I was merely pointing out that Linux Audio
has taken funds in exchange for advertising in the past. Even from
companies that were promoting an "anti Linux" agenda.