The first is for RSS feeds and if you know what that is, good. If you don't, even better. At least for you.
The latter is the Creative Commons license under which content on this site is released for use by others. If you don't know what a Creative Commons license is you might want to ask your favorite search engine to show you the way. Or you could just use that link.
This license is to support equitable sharing and is to some degree in reaction to another blogger who copied a post onto his blog--a heretofore unprecedented action*. The copied post has since been removed but not in response to TOD as the re-poster had in fact done exactly the right thing without any indication as to what that might be over here in TODland:
- Proper attribution was given
- Content was presented without derivation
There are some other key elements of this license, mostly restrictions.
For one, this is not software and it is not for you to fix what you may perceive as bugs--Britishisms creep out and what few letters are wasted with colour and behaviour are more than made up for with thru. Nor should you modify content in any way that makes it appear to be your original work. Call it "no plagiarism" or simply "no derivation" as in the language of the license. It is certainly within "fair use" to rip a post apart and stomp on it, just not here.
For another, if anyone is going to make any money off the rather twisted opinions presented on TOD, it will be TOD. Swag is in the offing.
And finally, the republication or other use of content presented here should in no way be used as an endorsement of others' opinions, blogs or websites. It is unfathomable why anyone would even want to do that, but there it is.
For one, this is not software and it is not for you to fix what you may perceive as bugs--Britishisms creep out and what few letters are wasted with colour and behaviour are more than made up for with thru. Nor should you modify content in any way that makes it appear to be your original work. Call it "no plagiarism" or simply "no derivation" as in the language of the license. It is certainly within "fair use" to rip a post apart and stomp on it, just not here.
For another, if anyone is going to make any money off the rather twisted opinions presented on TOD, it will be TOD. Swag is in the offing.
And finally, the republication or other use of content presented here should in no way be used as an endorsement of others' opinions, blogs or websites. It is unfathomable why anyone would even want to do that, but there it is.
There is a related consequence of re-posting: in so doing YOU may be perceived as endorsing or agreeing with an opinion on this blog and you may find, as is so often the case, this is socially unacceptable especially in polite company. There has been some suggestion that the remorseful un-re-poster found himself regrettably aligned, at least in some folk's minds, with certain positions regarding city governance with which he does not in fact agree. He seems pretty smart and everyone makes mistakes so that is likely the case.
Just bear in mind when re-posting that there is an implicit "read and understood" that may be misinterpreted as "and I approve this message" and be very clear in your re-posting what your true position is because it very likely is NOT the one expressed here.
*In the past posts have been referenced with the most recent being the April Fool's post regarding Bucky's Bikes that showed up as legitimate news over on the Patch. There are reports alcohol was involved.
Posts
