Related Posts

1. The Wrong Way Of Looking At Client Relationships: An Example Examined And Discussed (13.4)

The numbers inside parentheses are relevance scores. Scoring is based, in order of priority, on title, category, content and tags. The higher the score, the more likely that post relates to this post. ]]> Call the headline to this article overwrought, if you like, and you’ll be correct. But the way I view business is, you have partners, and the relationships you have with those partners are a balance.

If you’re a freelance coder and you’re not putting the same kind of thought and consideration you use in personal relationships into your business partners, you’re going to get burned. Because as it is with friends and lovers, you get out of customers and vendors alike exactly what you give.

I’ve put a lot into GoDaddy, and they’ve given me a lot back. That’s why, even though GoDaddy initially supported the Stop Online Piracy Act and only recanted under threat of boycott, I’m going to keep doing business with them.

For those in the dark and the benefits of post-event context, SOPA is a bill, before Congress at this writing, that would give broad censorship powers to the Department of Justice, ostensibly to block incorrigible copyright violators. It’s envisioned as a way to get the repeat scofflaws who are largely undeterred by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which clearly has been almost completely ineffective at stopping brazen file sharing.

SOPA: An Abomination

I don’t care to get into an argument about the nature of copyright in the digital age, the open source movement, free speech, the sharecropping that is the music industry, the complete moral bankruptcy that is mainstream Hollywood, Bob Parson’s personality or anything else along those lines. They’re ancillary at best and red herrings in practice.

It suffices that the intent and common interpretation of the Fourth and Fifth amendments make ominous the provisions of SOPA that block advertising and payment processors from serving a Web site, the ability of the government to seize domain names without a court order, to assume intent without civil process and impose upon the accused the burdens of proof.

In other words, SOPA is an abomination of this country’s fundamental governing tenets; how any reasonable person could support it is beyond me.

One of those “people,” in the corporate sense, was GoDaddy (at least, up until Friday). In fact, of its own proud admission, GoDaddy had a hand in crafting some parts of the legislation.

Now, I can understand why GoDaddy would support, in a broad sense, an effort to effectively prosecute online piracy. I can see it in a completely altruistic sense: Online piracy is stealing. Stealing is wrong. Thieves should be punished.

But as things stand now, there is no effective deterrent and no real consequences for the middling. (By which I mean, if you’re a major channel of piracy, you’ll get sued by Big Media. If you once downloaded “Glee” via BitTorrent, nobody cares.  But if you’re ripping porn sites and putting them on file-sharing sites, or are seeding all of Joss Whedon’s works via The Pirate Bay, or are on some forum sharing Beyonce’s discography, maybe you have to put up with a few file links getting killed or a notice from your ISP to knock it off, but largely, you can get around the inconveniences posed by DMCA.

You can even make a tidy sum of money from the online file hosts. And let’s not kid each other: File hosts are mostly hosting pirated content, and are making their money on the backs of content producers.

And I can see it in the pragmatic sense. As the law stands now, GoDaddy is effectively the police, left with the responsibility (and most of the risk) associated with enforcing DMCA complaints. It would be better for them to have an omnibus law that says, “you get this letter, you take the site down, and the courts will settle it later.”

Stand For Something, Fall For Anything

So OK, in the academic sense, I can understand GoDaddy’s starting position. But SOPA simply will not do, and that it took the threat of an exodus of customers to get them to change their tune — and it actually hasn’t become opposition, so much as it’s become “we quit” — is quite disheartening.

I’d prefer a principled response. If GoDaddy believes in SOPA, then it should stand its ground and take whatever beating is coming its way like a man. If GoDaddy has seen the light, then it should repent and join all the other major Internet companies in protest. But it shouldn’t say, “Go Daddy will support (SOPA) when and if the Internet community supports it.” That’s chickenshit.

In fact, it’s so flaky it has me contemplating bailing out on them anyway. I don’t like the idea that I am partners with a company that can be threatened into submission on its core values. But I’ve decided to stay. Here’s why:

• GoDaddy’s service is reliable. I seldom face downtime, and what downtime I do face is usually very short-term.
• My problems are solved quickly and effectively. I realize that’s not everyone’s experience, but it’s been mine. (Please, don’t bother posting your GoDaddy support nightmares in the comments. I don’t care to hear only one side of the story.) My experience is, on the rare occasion I need to contact GoDaddy with a problem, a competent and pleasant person picks up the phone and fixes the issue. As we all know, that rarely happens in the telephone tech support world.
• GoDaddy has what I need. I need domain names. I need sophisticated control over my DNS records. I need shared, low-volume Web hosting. I need an IMAP server with unlimited storage.  GoDaddy sells all these things; I prefer to have a few reliable vendors than dozens of providers whose names I can’t keep straight.
• I have a longstanding relationship with GoDaddy. We’ve been doing business together for 12+ years. That counts for something.
• It’s a pain in the ass to pull up stakes. Yeah, inconvenience is a consideration here. We can stay married, hate each other and live in separate parts of the house. That ain’t good but it’s better than shuffling through apartments looking for a new place I like and can afford.
• The prices are excellent. Yeah, for all my talk about money not being the only thing, I don’t want to pay more than I have to for things. Especially for low-volume Windows Web hosting, GoDaddy’s price-feature-reliability matrix can’t be beat.

So some love has been lost, but I am staying.

That’s not to say I’ll stick around if GoDaddy continues to screw up. Again, I’m not happy about this, but when I weigh how disappointed I am in GoDaddy’s actions around SOPA vs. how good things have been and could still be, I’m inclined to give them a second chance. There will not be a third.

All links in this post on delicious: http://delicious.com/dougvdotcom/im-sticking-with-godaddy-for-the-right-reasons-even-if-theyve-done-wrong

Related Posts

1. Designers And Developers: Donate Your Time, Talent At New England GiveCamp, June 11-13, 2010 (12.9)
2. MSDN Roadshow In Augusta, March 19: Well Worth The Time (12.6)
3. Displaying The Correct Time For World Cities With AJAX / JavaScript / DOM (11.7)

The numbers inside parentheses are relevance scores. Scoring is based, in order of priority, on title, category, content and tags. The higher the score, the more likely that post relates to this post. ]]> Sorry, I don’t recall this. I did have a client a while back who was interested in SAP but I don’t believe I ever followed through.

If you could provide a link to the question, it might help refresh my memory.

I don’t believe I’ve ever said I use pirated software, and I’d be surprised to see anything in which I offered to share pirated software. It’s possible I noted that stealing software was an option, but I have to believe that if I said that, I also said that doing so was legally and morally wrong. Again, a link to the question you’re referencing would clear things up for me.

For the record, I have often said — and stand by the statement — that it’s everyone’s right to make personal copies of software he has legally purchased, even if a EULA forbids personal copies; but I don’t believe it’s OK to distribute copy-restricted software in violation of license terms.

Ask me anything

Related Posts

1. On Facebook’s New Features, Privacy And The Near Future Of The Web (16.9)
2. The Future Of Web Programming: From Artisan To Assembly Line (15.3)
3. A Beginning Entrepreneur's Guide To Pricing, Part 2: How Price Conveys Value (14.8)

The numbers inside parentheses are relevance scores. Scoring is based, in order of priority, on title, category, content and tags. The higher the score, the more likely that post relates to this post. ]]> Free: The Future of a Radical Price by Chris Anderson

My rating: 3 of 5 stars

Reading Free: The Future of a Radical Price reminded me, in many ways, of  The Grand Design.

To understand the universe on the quantum level, you have to embrace understandings and facts that seem ludicrous at human scales. That is, that we have free will; that things cannot be in the same place at the same time; that time progresses at one speed and forward only, are all convenient and explicit truths for our day-to-day existence. But at the subatomic level, that’s not how things work; not at all.

Anderson’s arguments about Free — that is, gratis and libre — are presented in the same sense, if not quite as well or explicitly.

Free does a fine job of explaining the mechanics of how things can be free on the Web: namely, per-unit / per-user costs are so low, they might as well be considered nothing.

He also does a good job of explaining the obvious money-making models applied successfully so far: advertising, freemium (basic service is free; premium service costs money) and non-monetary / indirect recompense, such as an increase in reputation / marketing of ancillary products, such as concerts and merchandise for musicians or speaking engagements and consultations for professionals.

Probably the most valuable lesson Anderson’s book provides is that in the information economy, copies cost nothing.

Certainly, the physical cost of the copy is so close to nothing, it might as well be nothing; but Anderson also suggests that the lost “opportunity cost” of not selling that record or book or software is significantly overstated, since there’s a good chance they wouldn’t have been purchased in the first place, and that the auxiliary benefits of spreading a product far and wide outweigh the loss from sales.

Speaking as someone who has pirated content he probably would have purchased if he couldn’t get it for free, I’d call that argument, on its face, pretty spurious.

But it makes perfect sense in view of the base assertion that digital content is going to be stolen, because it’s so easy and the costs / consequences are virtually zero. So don’t put all your effort into preventing theft (but don’t make it completely easy, either); put most of your effort into monetizing your soon-to-be-widespread content.

The reason I can’t give Anderson full credit here is because for someone who so consistently and readily acknowledges that there’s two groups of understanding when it comes to Free — the over-30 crowd, which can’t break free of the “there’s no such thing as a free lunch” model; and the under-30 crowd, which can’t understand copyright or intellectual property to save its life — he sure does a poor job of satiating each others’ curiosity.

It’s one thing to relate the obvious, which is about half of Anderson’s book. It’s another to provide real-life examples of how Free is being monetized, which Anderson does via several sidebars.

What this book lacks is what it needed most: its own version of M-theory, to explain how and why Free is the only model that makes sense here. That is, he went about presenting the information all wrong.

It should have been less anecdotal and more theoretical proof. Had Free set out with a statement of the “rules of the digital economy,” then proceeded to address those rules in order with interlocking and supporting truths, a much more useful book would have been produced.

As it is, Free tells us what we already know, and does little to predict what comes next. It suffices as an introduction to the idea of the economics of the 21st century, but it’s no road map.

View all my reviews

Related Posts

1. Three Web Sites That Make My Online Life A Lot Easier (12.8)

The numbers inside parentheses are relevance scores. Scoring is based, in order of priority, on title, category, content and tags. The higher the score, the more likely that post relates to this post. ]]> When I talk to new free-lance programmers about running a business, there are two core pieces of advice I offer. The first is that it‘s almost always better to have a little high-paying work than a lot of low-paying jobs. The other is the importance of a lawyer-reviewed contract that clearly defines the work to be produced, the date by which it will be completed and the cost of that work.

So I was very pleased to come across a Creative Mornings talk, given by Mike Monteiro of Mule Design and his attorney, Gabriel Levine, which reinforces and expands upon those basic ideas.

(via zeldman.com and Google Reader Play)

This is a long video (40 minutes) but worth every moment. But for the tl;dw crowd, here’s a synopsis of the salient points:

1. Contracts protect both parties – you and your client.
2. Don’t start work without a contract.
3. Don’t blindly accept your client’s terms.
4. Anticipate negotiation but don’t back down on important stuff – payment, deadlines and your intellectual property rights in the work until final payment is received.
5. Lawyers talk to lawyers. If your client is talking to you in the presence of, or through, his lawyer, get yours or don’t talk.
6. Be specific and confident about money. Ask for the rate you deserve and don’t back down on terms.

“This is a business,” said Monteiro. “All clients start a business relationship with the best of intentions, but things go wrong. Things that you weren’t expecting: the market changes, or the person who hired you leaves, or someone has a bad mood day, but things change.”

In other words, it doesn’t matter how well you know someone, how minor the work you are doing is or how informal or nontraditional you or your client may be about running a business. Good contracts don’t hurt relationships: they protect them.

Otherwise, Monteiro noted, you’re left to making emotional appeals in order to get paid: “The minute you appeal to their emotions, you have given up any bit of leverage that you had in that relationship. You have shown them your belly. You have shown them that you don’t think you have a leg to stand on, other than playing upon guilt.”

Contracts contain clear definitions of the work to be done and clear expectations for both parties. That helps you deal with problems, such as attempts to change the nature and scope of the project midstream; the client expressing displeasure or reservations about the work so far (i.e., buyer’s remorse); delays or confusion about payment amounts due; keeping the project on track and on schedule; and so forth.

“You want to make sure that everybody understands what they have agreed to,” says Levine.

What if the client says, “you can trust us?”

“This is the biggest red flag in client services,” said Monteiro. “If you ever hear this phrase, just walk away.”

He gives, as example, a client who didn’t want to codify payment terms, on a project that was to being in two days. He decided to walk away.

“If you agree to things like this at the very beginning, you are going to have to agree to things during the project that are as onerous,” said Monteiro. “Let this be a sign of what’s to come and walk away from it.”

He also addressed the two common complaints most people have about hiring a lawyer, accountant or other trusted advisor: “It’s expensive” and “Do I really need one?”

“What I pay (Levine) is a pittance of the money I would have lost had I not had him taking care of this stuff,” said Monteiro, “and you’re at the point where you need a lawyer when you decide to stop being a design amateur and start being a design professional.”

It’s really easy, when you’re just starting out in business, to feel as though you should be happy to have the work and shouldn’t be demanding about terms, conditions or payment. Believe me, I felt that way when I went out on my own. And as a result, every mistake and problem was magnified, because I was performing without a safety net: A clear, firm and comprehensive contract.

Now, even if I am just doing a quick job for a routine customer, I make sure I have at least an email stating what is to be done, when it will be delivered and the rate I am to be paid, so there are few surprises and little misunderstood.

And believe it or not, when you do run into problems — and all human endeavors have problems — a contract helps you fix problems without having to go to the extremes of court. Contracts keep people honest and motivate them to solve their problems within the context of the agreement. Or, as Monteiro said, most client issues can be fixed via a quick cup of coffee or a short chat when you have a good contract with him.

All links in this post on delicious: http://www.delicious.com/dougvdotcom/good-contracts-make-good-business-or-fck-you-pay-me

Related Posts

1. Recommended Steps In A Web Development Career (13.5)
2. Hello, I’ve a question about your post “Using AJAX To Update A Non-Map DIV Via Google Maps API’s GDownload() And GMarker OnClick Event”. Your example is for the V2 version of google maps, so, is it possible to have exactly the same things for the v3 api? (12.6)
3. Good, Free Web Site Building Tools (12.1)

The numbers inside parentheses are relevance scores. Scoring is based, in order of priority, on title, category, content and tags. The higher the score, the more likely that post relates to this post. ]]> On CNET, via slashdot: Lendle, a Web site that had helped facilitate the loaning of ebooks among Kindle users, was effectively destroyed when Amazon shut down Lendle’s access to its Kindle API.

Lendle first reported the news via Twitter: “Amazon has revoked Lendle’s API access. This is why the site is down. It’s sad and unfortunate that Amazon is shutting down lending sites…According to Amazon, Lendle does not ‘serve the principal purpose of driving sales of products and services on the Amazon site.’”

According to Lendle co-founder Jeff Croft, “at least two other Kindle lending services” have been terminated from the API.

The problem with Lendle and its cousins is simple: It was too good at what it did.

Amazon does allow one-time loans of an ebook for up to 14 days, but they expect such trading to be among intimates. Lendle greatly expanded the ability for one person to trade with a complete stranger, and as a result posed a serious threat to potential Kindle edition sales.

After all, if I can’t find someone to lend me an ebook, I probably have to buy it. Put me in big enough a room of Kindle owners, however, and I’m likely to find what I am after for free.

I don’t care to get into copyright, the nature of modern publishing, or the like. I’m far more interested in pointing out the problem with using third-party APIs that this illustrates: If you make something too good, there’s usually nothing stopping the API service from cutting you off and stealing your work.

If you look at that pesky fine print in most API terms of service — and certainly, in the Kindle API terms — you’ll notice two things:

1. You grant license to the API provider to use whatever software you create (or, at least, you surrender your intellectual property / patent rights in whatever use you come up with); and
2. They can cut you off at any time, for any reason, usually with no advance warning.

I don’t mean to suggest that Amazon is going to replicate what Lendle created. It’s pretty apparent Jeff Bezos et al. simply want to nip widespread ebook sharing in the bud.

The lesson is, be careful about being better than the thing providing the API access. I point now, specifically, to the new yfrog, rolled out last weekend.

Before the redesign / repurposing, yfrog was a relatively reliable, and butt-ugly, image- and video-sharing service for Twitter.

Now, it is a full-featured Twitter client; one that is arguably better than the original. Among its improvements to Twitter itself is threaded comments (as in, replies are shown beneath original messages) and inline thumbnail previews of images (at least, for pictures hosted on yfrog & twitpic).

It doesn’t have many of the more advanced features of Twitter.com — no searching, for example; no access to direct messages — but for “look at my timeline and react to it” purposes, I think yfrog is a significant improvement over Twitter itself.

Were it not for the nefarious unreliability of the Twitter API, I’d seriously consider using the yfrog as my primary Twitter client.

Now, I don’t mean to suggest that Twitter is going to cut off API access to yfrog; it’s quite clear that Twitter’s interests are served by freely encouraging others to implement user interfaces for its data. What I do mean to suggest is that it would not surprise me if, sooner rather than later, Twitter.com started showing threaded comments and thumbnail previews of image attachments.

Can I guarantee that will happen? No. But it wouldn’t shock me if it does happen, and if a lot of people start using yfrog instead of Twitter, I’d be surprised if it didn’t happen. Especially if Twitter eventually turns to display advertising. (Again, that’s not something they’ve announced intentions of doing, but at some point, investor money dries up, and those who have invested want to see a return.)

So there is today’s real-world lesson: If you rely on someone else for data, he can pull the rug out from under you at any time. That doesn’t mean, “don’t use third-party APIs”; it does mean, “be prepared to pay if you make something too nice.”

All the links in this post on delicious: http://www.delicious.com/dougvdotcom/the-danger-of-api-development-making-something-too-good

Related Posts

Related Posts

Related Posts

1. Death, Taxes And Bad Web Sites For Review On Yahoo! Answers (14.9)

The numbers inside parentheses are relevance scores. Scoring is based, in order of priority, on title, category, content and tags. The higher the score, the more likely that post relates to this post. ]]> Asked recently on Yahoo! Answers:

To those of you who design websites, is this ethical?
I think my web designer may own the rights to my website. She’s got her company name at the bottom of all my pages, and made a comment once about me being stuck with her. Is that ethical? Is that common? What kind of a practice is that to hold the copyright to a customers web site?

Let’s deal with the legal question first: Absent an agreement that copyright will be transferred at the end of a job, a Web site’s developer owns a Web site developed under contract for someone else. That’s the law.

Which is, of course, why you always want to have written contracts that transfer ownership of others’ work for hire to you. And you shouldn’t use legal documents you find on the Web, either; laws vary from state to state, and you don’t want your contracts voided because you were too lazy to have them vetted by an attorney.

You should hire a competent business attorney admitted to the bar for your state / jurisdiction and pay him to draft your agreements. Or you should expect to find yourself in a jam like the one this questioner faces.

The good news for this person is twofold, however: She can always go someplace else and start a new site. But better yet, she’s really in control of the situation, because she has the one thing this contractor doesn’t have: The ability to keep her mouth shut.

Last things first, shall we?

Turn The Tables On Her

I’ve previously ranted against the “Customer As Hostage” view a lot of bad businesspeople tend to hold. (And you’ve seen how they react when you try to point out to them their approach is dumb).

The greatest power you have over such business people are your own strong business skills — namely, the same things that make you successful: your social network, drive / attitude and skills. By speaking up about the bad business practices of others, you leverage tremendous power over them, especially if you are generally regarded as a good business person.

The fix to this questioner’s problem, therefore, is simple: Inform the Web contractor with the misguided sense of copyright, in writing, that you are going to use a different Web professional, and insist that the person turn over the domain name for the site to your control.

Then, pay someone else to make an entirely new site, and chalk the cost up as a reminder that good contracts make for good business relationships.

If the contractor balks, make it very clear — again, in writing — that you are going to hire someone else to make a new site, regardless; and if the domain name doesn’t get turned over to your control, you’ll be more than happy to make your disagreement with the contractor and her policies very public.

If she refuses to surrender your domain name, follow through with a vengeance. Go 100 percent public.

If you have a store, print up a one-page flyer explaining the facts of your dispute and put them on your front counter. Attach copies of your correspondence to them.

Take out newspaper ads explaining the situation and your dismay. Buy cable TV and radio ads.

Hand out your flyer at the local Chamber of Commerce, Kiwanis, Rotary and Lions club meetings. Wherever you see her trying to network or make sales, make sure you are there, too, handing out your flyer.

Create a Web site detailing the situation. Google her business name and leave comments wherever possible detailing your situation and how disappointed you are. Complain to the Better Business Bureau, even if she isn’t a member.

The louder you can make your complaints, the more it hurts her business, provided your facts are true and you remain calm while criticizing her business. Don’t yell; don’t call her names; don’t attempt any sort of sabotage. Simply state loudly, and to anyone who will listen, the facts and how disappointed you are with her attitude. The more reasonable you are in your statements, the less reasonable she looks.

Believe me, it won’t take much of that until one of two things happen: She’ll sue, or she’ll give you what you want.

It isn’t libel to say you don’t like someone’s business practices. It isn’t libel to state facts. If you state the facts and offer that you think the contractor is a bad businessperson who swindled you, that’s not actionable.

Throughout the process, only communicate with the contractor in writing and make it known that if she surrenders your domain name, you will cease your activities.

Trust me, unless the contractor is the most vindictive and short-sighted person on Earth, it won’t go far; she will figure out that you are far more willing to do far more damage to her business than any value she would ever get out of you against your will.

Copyright Works Two Ways

Even if your contractor maintains copyright, that doesn’t give her right to operate a Web site for you, or your business, against your wishes. You can command her to shut down the site immediately and she must comply.

The same copyright that prevents you from taking the Web site she made prevents her from using your business name, likeness, etc. against your will. She may own the pages, but you own the business, and she has no right to appropriate your business name for any purpose if she hasn’t been granted that right.

In other words, her work may well be hers, but the site represents your business, and absent a contract to the contrary, she has no right to use your business in her Web site.

An obvious fix, therefore, is to order her to take the site down immediately and to refuse to pay her any more money. If you are under contract to pay her money, pay the money through the end of the contract and order her to remove the site.

Copyright Isn’t A Patent

Notice, in the above, I am only advocating for being a pain in the contractor’s ass if the contractor has control of the domain name for your business and does not want to reliquish it.

And the only reason I advocate being a pain in the ass in that circumstance is that experience has shown me, if you are not the registrant for a domain name, but have legal right to the domain as a trademark, trade name or the like, it is a very arduous and long process to wrest control via official channels; it’s far easier and quicker to badger someone who knows they are going to lose into complying with your wishes. (Witness all the ambulance chasers that advertise during daytime TV; it’s the same idea.)

If you own the domain name, or have control over it already, the fix is simple: Since you have no copyright over your current Web site, it’s time to make a new one.

The balancing act here comes in what would consitute a “new” site. To be safe, I would start from scratch: A completely different design using entirely new colors; an all-new logo.

Other than elemental facts — the name of the business, its address and phone number, hours of operation and the like — I would create all-new copy. I would take or purchase all-new images.

I would give serious consideration to completely changing the number of pages in the site and ensuring it does not have a similar page flow as the previous site. The object would be to create an all-new site that shares few to no similarities to the old site, so that copyright claims from the first contractor could be quashed.

And, of course, I would have a written contract, vetted by my lawyer, ensuring the work was mine upon its completion.

Then, I would conduct a more silent campaign against the other contractor; namely, tell anyone you know who is looking for a Web site to steer clear of her.

Trust me, operators such as this don’t last long. And when they go out of business, they have to find a job someplace else. The less people think of her, the more likely she winds up behind the counter at McDonald’s, where she probably belongs.

Your reasonable objections to her behavior do the general business community a service. Be fair, be accurate, be honest, but be firm and constant.

Related Posts

1. The Dangers Of Allowing Public File Uploads To Your Web Site (17)

The numbers inside parentheses are relevance scores. Scoring is based, in order of priority, on title, category, content and tags. The higher the score, the more likely that post relates to this post. ]]> I’ve decided that it’s time to pay more attention to the open-source projects I have created and will create. I’m also considering joining some other software projects.

As a result, I need to revisit my licensing.

Previously, my software was licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution / Share-Alike 3.0 license. That license is really intended for authors, musicians and teachers, but I found its strong requirements for attribution and sharing of derivative works met my needs.

However, most open-source projects use a GNU license, most notably the GNU General Public License. As such, I believe it’s best to change my software licensing over to the GNU GPL.

I do this reluctantly. I am an ardent supporter of open-source software. I believe it’s my duty to give back to the developer community. But I believe I am due credit as a work’s author, and that my right to ultimately retain the benefits of copyright should be clear.

The GNU GPL technically defends my authorship and allows me to retain ultimate copyright, but it does so in a far weaker way than the Creative Commons Attribution / Share-Alike license.

I am in the process of changing all posts to reflect my new licensing.

For additional information about my licensing terms, visit the Copyright / Attribution page.