I think it was the association with the Rod Liddle anti-cyclist rant that annoyed me the most.
It was under a Creative Commons Non-Commercial licence, which is pretty generous in terms of reuse, but explicit about no commercial use. That said, I get that there's still a bit of confusion, and there has been some debate in the past about whether a site that gains revenue from advertising is commercial or not. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/deed.en_GB
They've taken it down now, but I will email them an invoice!
I think it was the association with the Rod Liddle anti-cyclist rant that annoyed me the most.
It was under a Creative Commons Non-Commercial licence, which is pretty generous in terms of reuse, but explicit about no commercial use. That said, I get that there's still a bit of confusion, and there has been some debate in the past about whether a site that gains revenue from advertising is commercial or not. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/deed.en_GB
They've taken it down now, but I will email them an invoice!