I'm still not really getting how matt can use the word 'love', and pull stunts like this. I'm sure it'll be passed off as a simple misunderstanding, but when you do it this many times in a row, it's patently obvious that it isn't accidental. perhaps if he answered emails, he might have less trouble with people having to post his mistakes in public.
right on time, mr. lessig posts a beta of a CC-license generator that includes some helpful microformats: a rel="cc:attributionURL" property="cc:attributionName", which will remove more of the plausibility from matt's denials.
11 Comments
Stunts like what? When I saw the comment I made the URL change in SVN and deployed it. Is there some drama I missed? Did you contact myself or Sadish before trying to stir the pot?
no, that’s exactly my point. every time i’ve emailed you privately about something, i’ve gotten radio silence in response. every time i post about something, i get a response in 2 hours or so.
it’s not drama, it’s a pattern. you’ve removed, broken, or replaced theme links on garland, 2813, k2, and fjord at least, in recent memory. (in addition to misty look)
Sadish’s ToS looks pretty damn clear to me:
I know getting people to read the ToS is always an uphill struggle, but you tend to expect more from the savvier users, don’t you? Editing the URL because it’s got a few too many sponsored links for your taste is not ‘keeping the credits intact’.
I’d be somewhat pissed off if people started changing my ntu links to point to wank or my personal blog. It has nothing to do with pagerank and everything to do with relevance. Not that I would expect the guy who stuck his personal blog into every WP blogroll to understand other people’s wish to compartmentalise, though you’d think he might be more sympathetic towards their wish to be credited. Personally I find wptheme.info infinitely less spammy than that vermilion christmas site, but I have long since given up trying to find anything consistent or indeed coherent in Matt’s approach to theme linkage.
i’m quickly running out of work this afternoon, so i’ll flesh this out a bit more:
as much as i’ve wanted to believe that you guys have that much trouble copying and pasting:
* it is now statistically improbable for that to be true
* even if it weren’t, that sort of copy/paste problem isn’t prevalent in any other code released by automattic.
* unless you were looking, you would not have accidentally looked at simpleinside to find misty look. None of his GPL themes are mentioned on that site, at all(so google couldn’t have lead you there). in fact, simpleinside is 3 clicks removed from the theme page.
If, as the above facts imply, this was an intentional decision to change the link, and not an accident, then Sadish was correcting a slight, not bugfixing.
wank, I don’t think any of your themes are in danger of being used here.
Adam, it wasn’t a copy and paste error, I specifically did the link to go to Sadish’s site. He left a comment asking it to be changed, I did and I approved the comment. I honestly don’t see what the problem is. I also don’t have any emails from you in my inbox, you can cc: my gmail in case you’re getting caught by spam filters.
I thought that the
rel="license"attribute for links did a reasonable job, i.e.,a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/" rel="license"What I would like to see is the
relattribute with theciteelement.Think of like how stylesheet and rss links are now. Maybe
type="..."is the way to go, i.e.,a href="..." rel="license" type="license/cc+attribute"That allows the
relattribute to remain generic, but specified withtype. It’s worked before, I suppose.you can check out the code it generates in my sidebar. semantics probably dictate that it should be more like
<a href="..." rel="license" type="license/cc+attribute">..</a> <cite rel="cc:attributionName"><a href="..." rel="cc:attributionURL">...</a></cite>I’ve never made any great claims for my design skills but I didn’t think my stuff was significantly worse than, say, ‘Sweet Blossoms’. Ah well, I’ll live.
My reference to ‘people’ was to, you know, people, rather than wordpress.com specifically. You’re not the first user to disregard a designer’s terms of use and you won’t, unfortunately, be the last.
Actually the code that this fellow has put together for his generator isn’t bad at all. I just get nervous when people make things up. Sometimes, making things up is good, e.g.,
rel="nofollow",link rel="first" .... Othertimes, not so, e.g.,skype://username(or whatever that style is, can’t remember).Here, here, for using
citewhen citing something, notably a license.i’d say treacle is significantly better than most of the crap here.
but then, not being blue, involving gradients, or glossy overlays might have been its downfall.
i’m afraid i’ll have to work harder at pissing people off to get the same said about any themes i release.
i almost removed matt’s comment, were it not for the fact that most of my posts violate my guidelines, making them a bit unenforceable.
I’m not impressed by Matt’s off topic delivery of a slap in the face to wank.
Wank’s themes are not the subject matter of this post.
After all, what valuable contribution do off topic adolescent snipes make to civilized discourse?
I would suggest the answer is: absolutely nothing.
It’s my experience that off topic sniping this is a tactic employed by those who are determined either to distract or to shut others up.
So why would anyone in their right mind want to establish a reputation for being a sniper?
Post a Comment