The following message bounced back to me because Mr. Markham, or someone he
trusts to deliver his mail, believes I am a spammer:
<gerv@mozilla.org>: host smtp.osuosl.org[140.211.166.131] refused to talk to
me: 550 Service unavailable; Client host [65.26.182.85] blocked using
dynablock.njabl.org; Dynamic/Residential IP range listed by NJABL dynablock
- http://njabl.org/dynablock.html
Could someone who is not (as far as they know) in an anti-spam blacklist please
forward this message to Mr. Markham for me?
(Also, Mr. Markham's MTA waited 5 days to send me this bounce; I'm not sure
why.)
I am not now, nor have I ever been, a spammer. Nor has any machine I own
or control been used as a platform for spamming with or without my
knowledge or consent. I resent the implication that I have engaged in spam
activities or permitted them to take place with the aid of my property. I
do understand that most people don't care whom they tar with the accusation
of "spammer" as long as they believe the level of spam they personally
receive is lessened through the indiscriminate rejection of legitimate mail
traffic. I may be beginning to understand -- just barely -- what it feels
like to be pulled over by the police for having the wrong skin color.
On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 03:56:25PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Mr. Markham,
>
> First of all, my apologies for sending this unsolicited mail.
>
> I'm a developer for the Debian Project[1], and in the course of a recent
> discussion, some of us became curious as to what the progress of the
> triple-licensing effort was.
>
> I did attempt to research the answer for myself. I checked the minutes of
> the weekly Mozilla staff meetings, and found that on 24 November 2003[2], it
> was believed that all necessary permissions had been obtained.
>
> Later, in January, I understand that you said in an email discussion that
> the relicensing was well underway, and that the only files you couldn't get
> permission to relicense were not important[3].
>
> I've looked for more information, and I did check the Mozilla Relicensing
> FAQ[4], but it claims to have not been updated since 7 December, and I
> cannot determine the current status of the relicensing. I also checked the
> "copyright" file of Debian's mozilla-browser package, but it is either
> outdated, or perhaps that something has held up the relicensing effort:
>
> Some files in this source package are under the Netscape Public License
> Others, under the Mozilla Public license, and just to confuse you even·
> more, some are dual licensed MPL/GPL.
>
> Given the content of the Relicensing FAQ, I suspect this information is out
> of date, so I am CCing the Debian Mozilla package maintainers.
>
> If you could advise me where to look for the answers I seek, I sure would
> appreciate it. I'm sorry to take up your time with this.
>
> [1] http://www.debian.org/
> [2] http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=3FCB8B00.5070604%40mozilla.org
> [3] http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=3FFC952B.2020302%40mozilla.org
> [4] http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/relicensing-faq.html
>
> --
> G. Branden Robinson | The more you do, the more people
> Debian GNU/Linux | will dislike what you do.
> branden@debian.org | -- Gerfried Fuchs
> http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
--
G. Branden Robinson | No math genius, eh? Then perhaps
Debian GNU/Linux | you could explain to me where you
branden@debian.org | got these... PENROSE TILES!
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Stephen R. Notley
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature