Of course I'm shocked and saddened to see this turn into a dustup. I am not, have not ever, and never will attempt to "work around" a license, and that's not the case here. My sin here is laziness, not deviousness. Here's what happened on my side.
I'm on the phone with someone who wants to use a graphic from Drupal.org in some documentation. I say, "I don't know if that's possible... let me find out". Licenses aren't my specialty, and I've misunderstood non-traditional licenses in the past. I wanted to make sure I got it right, so I jumped on the #drupal channel of IRC to get the answer "from the horse's mouth".
While logging in, I realized that I should check the source (duh), so I go to Drupal.org and poke around for the license (which could be easier to find, but whatever). I see that it's under some sort of Creative Commons license, and pose my question.
You cut out (or missed) part of our conversation. You write:
webchick: tgeller, AFAIK the license links to the license text, no?
webchick: so read it, and do what it says. ;)
I wrote something like, "Oh, duh! Of course", went to read it, saw that we couldn't use the graphic as we wanted, said so, and thanked you. (I didn't save the chat, but encourage anyone who knows how such things work to read through the logs. Is that possible? I'd like to do that.)
I can see how the last line you quoted seems like I mean, "Ha ha, I'm going to pretend I didn't hear you and circumvent the license!" What I actually meant was, "I was stupid not to think of following the link to the license text from Drupal.org". This all happened within a few seconds, mind you, while we were both distracted by other things.
I'll leave this discussion up unless you tell me otherwise. I'm sorry that my glibness led to a misunderstanding, and hope that it doesn't affect our relationship, however slight it is.
Webchick:
Of course I'm shocked and saddened to see this turn into a dustup. I am not, have not ever, and never will attempt to "work around" a license, and that's not the case here. My sin here is laziness, not deviousness. Here's what happened on my side.
I'm on the phone with someone who wants to use a graphic from Drupal.org in some documentation. I say, "I don't know if that's possible... let me find out". Licenses aren't my specialty, and I've misunderstood non-traditional licenses in the past. I wanted to make sure I got it right, so I jumped on the #drupal channel of IRC to get the answer "from the horse's mouth".
While logging in, I realized that I should check the source (duh), so I go to Drupal.org and poke around for the license (which could be easier to find, but whatever). I see that it's under some sort of Creative Commons license, and pose my question.
You cut out (or missed) part of our conversation. You write:
webchick: tgeller, AFAIK the license links to the license text, no?
webchick: so read it, and do what it says. ;)
I wrote something like, "Oh, duh! Of course", went to read it, saw that we couldn't use the graphic as we wanted, said so, and thanked you. (I didn't save the chat, but encourage anyone who knows how such things work to read through the logs. Is that possible? I'd like to do that.)
I can see how the last line you quoted seems like I mean, "Ha ha, I'm going to pretend I didn't hear you and circumvent the license!" What I actually meant was, "I was stupid not to think of following the link to the license text from Drupal.org". This all happened within a few seconds, mind you, while we were both distracted by other things.
I'll leave this discussion up unless you tell me otherwise. I'm sorry that my glibness led to a misunderstanding, and hope that it doesn't affect our relationship, however slight it is.