User talk:Benjamin Mako Hill

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Older discussion has been archived here:

• User talk:Benjamin Mako Hill/Archive/2006

[edit] Long article title!

What was the title of that crazy book that was bound in the author's own skin? +sj + 07:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It's back online at Narrative of the Life of James Allen, alias Jonas Pierce, alias James H. York, alias Burley Grove, the Highwayman, Being His Death-bed Confession to the Warden of the Massachusetts State Prison after I split it off from the James Allen (highwayman) article. --mako 17:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Narrative of the Life of James Allen, alias Jonas Pierce, alias James H. York, alias Burley Grove, the Highwayman, Being His Death-bed Confession to the Warden of the Massachusetts State Prison

Interesting article, but somehow I doubt anyone is ever going to find it with that name. Perhaps a shorter version that people know it by (or at least some redirects) are in order? Just wondering ... CPAScott 17:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added a redirect from Narrative of the Life of James Allen to the article. --mako 17:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GNU General Public License

Hi, I don't really like your changes[1]. (But it contains some improvements.) They basically add the same misunderstandings again I was trying to get rid of:

• The GPL is not 'enforceable' in the sense that you can force anybody to comply with the terms and conditions, and was never written with this intention. Ie., if somebody is using your source code in his program, you cannot force him to comply with the license and make him release his source code under GPL, because the GPL is not a contract. You can merely sue him for copyright infringement according to the possibilities given by the law, which for example in Germany might be compensation and/or enforcing a distribution stop. I think it's similar in other countries. Without question, that's very inconvenient for the defendant, and many will certainly rather choose to comply than to face the consequences. But equating the one with the other is imprecise.
• The defendant claimed he was not the one who distributed the GPL software in the first place, and claimed it was a different company who did so. I don't see a clarification for that. Only when you consider this, you see the real nature of the case.

Can you please clarify the text so these important aspects needed for a objectivity don't get lost? --Rtc 16:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I can clean this up. --mako ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)