Strange Messages from Amazon.com

[Ben Tilly]

On 1/18/07, Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu> wrote:
> This is way offtopic, but has anyone else received messages like this?
> It's like someone signed their autoresponder up for the list...
>
Yes.  And I think that is what happened.

Can someone unregister said autoresponder?  Please?

Ben

> Matthew Flaschen
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Amazon.com" <auto-response at amazon.com>
> To: Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu>
> Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 03:39:12 GMT
> Subject: Re: Your Amazon.com Order
>
> Greetings from Amazon.com.
>
> We're sorry. You replied to a confirmation-only address that can't accept incoming e-mail. But that's OK--this automated response will direct you to the right place at Amazon.com to answer your question or help you make changes to your order.
>
> To view or change an unshipped order from Amazon.com, or to obtain seller contact information for questions about a Marketplace order, visit:
>
>     http://www.amazon.com/your-account
>
> For answers to questions about our shipping rates, returns policy, and how to use any of our services, visit:
>
>     http://www.amazon.com/help
>
> We hope our online resources meet all your needs. If you've explored the above links but find you still need to get in touch with us, please use the e-mail form in our online Help department.
>
> Thanks for shopping at Amazon.com.
>
>
> Sincerely,
> Amazon.com Customer Service
> http://www.amazon.com
>
>
> Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 22:38:51 -0500
> From: Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu>
> Subject: Re: Dynamic linking, was: Re: Dispelling BSD License Misconceptions
>
> Ben Tilly wrote:
> > On 1/18/07, Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu> wrote:
> >> Chuck Swiger wrote:
> >>
> >> Sticking to the example of readline and Python, part of the code is
> >> still specifically written to depend on readline.  I think under Eben's
> >> argument, this part would then be a derivative work.  Thus, that part at
> >> least should be licensed under the GPL.
> >
> > I can't speak to Python, but I can to Perl.  The situation is nowhere
> > near as simple as you describe.
>
> To clarify, I wrote that text, not Chuck.
>
> > There is a module, Term::ReadLine, that is distributed with the Perl
> > core.  This module is a stub, it allows people to interface to one of
> > (currently) three implementations of readline.  The first will load a
> > module (available on CPAN) that provides a Perl interface to the GNU
> > application.
>
> IANAL, but I think this is most likely to be a derivative work of readline.
>
> > Here is my opinion as a non-lawyer who can't give legal advice.  It is
> > obvious to me that no part of Perl outside of Term::ReadLine depends
> > on or is derivative from the GNU implementation of readline.  I
> > strongly doubt that Term::ReadLine can be said to be derivative of
> > readline.  I suspect that the author of Term::ReadLine::Gnu may be
> > overstepping when he licenses his module  under a dual Artistic/GPL
> > license.  (See the README file at
> > http://search.cpan.org/~hayashi/Term-ReadLine-Gnu-1.16/ for details.)
>
> I don't follow.  If you say his code is not derivative of anything,
> shouldn't he be able to choose whatever license he wants?
>
> >> This isn't quite the same thing.  Readline wasn't written to an existing
> >> Python plugin API.  Part of Python was written to interact specifically
> >> with readline.
> >
> > I suspect that Python did what Perl does.  (Possibly with less
> > pieces.)  In which case Python is written with a general plugin API,
> > and someone wrote a Python plugin around readline.  I suspect that
> > what is actually distributed with Python is a stub like the Perl one
> > so the situation is completely parallel, but the Python stub may be
> > more filled in than the Perl one is.
>
> I think this hypothetical plugin/stub is most likely to be a derivative
> work.
>
> >> Also, Chuck, please don't CC list members to list mail, unless they ask
> >> you to.
> >
> > Um, that's going to happen by default for most people.  The emails
> > arrive from the sender and CCed to the list, so "reply all" is going
> > to reply to both sender and list.
>
> It happens by default for me too.  Some people take the trouble to fix
> it, and some don't.
>
> > I manually edited things to not double send to you this time.  But I
> > won't guarantee to remember in the future.
>
> Understood.
>
> Matt Flaschen
>
>
>
>
>
>