For the record, Craig had expressed cynicism about Joel’s case until later today, he came across more facts that haven’t been brought up.
Enter: Reason into the debate:
This is likely to be my only comment regarding the matter. Paul makes the claim that Joel was out of line because of the CC license (I believe that it was a Creative Commons Attribution, NonCommercial, Share Alike 3.0 United States License. license).
Now, the closest shot I could get on the web archive of Vridar was from April 30, 2013 http://web.archive.org/web/20130430223337/http://vridar.wordpress.com/ (the ones from June 28 did not load anything). Two moths before this fiasco, there was no CC license found on Neil’s blog. See Update 2.
Now, if we look at the conditions for the Share Alike, we see this:
Share Alike — If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/us/deed.en_US, emphasis mine)
Regardless of whether or not the post in question was licensed under a Creative Commons license, Godfrey still violated the conditions of the Creative Commons license by not having “the same or similar license to this one” on his own blog.
Game. Set. Match.
Yeah, if you wanna respond to Craig, find the comment here: RUN DMC(A).
Funny what happens when you commit yourself to the facts.