Full Article Attached Christopher Blizzard of Speaks on the Firebird Naming Conflict

Wednesday May 14th, 2003

Last week, CNET published another report on the Firebird naming conflict. Claiming that the application of the Mozilla branding guidelines is tantamount to a back down on the part of, the article credits Jonathan Walther with resolving the disagreement. Walther was asked to mediate by Ann Harrison, one of the administrators of the Firebird database project. The article also reiterates the database project's claims of legal righteousness, which have since been challenged by Mitchell Baker. The open-source advocacy magazine Open has also printed an article about the dispute, featuring interviews with Harrison and Walther. The piece appears to fully support the position of the Firebird database project and lavishes praise on Walther. Neither article contains any statements from

More recently, the Australian LinuxWorld also awarded victory to the Firebird database project. While the article is decidedly in favour of the database group, it does at least quote sixteen words from's Christopher Blizzard (compared to 478 from representatives of the Firebird database community). The report makes several bizzare statements (including a claim that MozillaZine is run by Asa Dotzler), mentions an open letter allegedly sent by Walther to Harrison and MozillaZine (we've never seen it) and finishes off with an advert for the next week's Firebird database conference. It looks like you'll have to go to sites like MozillaNews if you want to read any remotely pro-Mozilla coverage. Thanks to everyone who sent us links to articles.

We at MozillaZine weren't satisfied with the rather one-sided reporting from the mainstream tech news sites, so we got in touch with to find out their real position. As a result, we're pleased to present an exclusive interview with Christopher Blizzard, the Red Hat employee and staff member who authored the Mozilla branding guidelines.

Update! have a report on the interview. The first reader comment on their article is from Jonathan Walther. It makes it very clear where he stands on the issue.

#70 Oh Please

by leet

Friday May 16th, 2003 2:14 PM

You are replying to this message

"The Jargon File 4.4.1 says a mailbomb is just any attempt to send, or urge other people to send, large quantities of email."

Be that as it may, I think most people associate mailbombing with spamming someone's account so they have a hard time using it. It's not usually used to talk about a protest campaign.

"If you're a government type, it kind of goes with the territory. I don't really think that's the case with people from open source projects (some of which weren't even deeply involved in the name change)."

Who says you can't protest a non-governmental organization? Did someone give to decide who shall or shall not be sent large numbers of emails?

"The initial campaign was started by IBPhoenix, which is affiliated to the Firebird database project: (LINK) (originally the page listed many more email addresses, around two dozen in all). Here's a contemporary MozillaZine article: (LINK)

They've since apologised: (LINK)"

They apologized because they're nice people, and for posting email addresses of people who aren't <>. But if a company, say AOL, chases people out of their houses to build a new HQ, say, do others have the right to send large numbers of protest materials? Again, who appointed the powers that be at to disapprove such acts?

Geez, who are you?