Re:The illustrated guide to a Ph.D. (2010)
by tom_mellior on Thursday January 12, 2017 @10:27AM
(#13382908)
> and now (it probably has been updated) the reposter is respecting the terms of it
The reposter still doesn't link back to the actual article as requested, though that's just a "please" clause. I guess naming (and even linking) the author and giving the title suffices to satisfy the attribution clause of the license.
Re:The illustrated guide to a Ph.D. (2010)
by StreakyCobra on Thursday January 12, 2017 @10:35AM
(#13382993)
> The reposter still doesn't link back to the actual article as requested, though that's just a "please" clause. I guess naming (and even linking) the author and giving the title suffices to satisfy the attribution clause of the license.
Indeed, I thought there was a link to the blog post, but there is not any. The situation is different than before though, as the real author is now at least credited.
https://thebittheories.com/masters-versus-ph-d-2b26ef33f883
The original content is licensed under a CC license [1], and now (it probably has been updated) the reposter is respecting the terms of it:
So I don't see any reason why the original link can't be shared in thread's comments, especially because people should be allowed to see by themselves the original article in order to forge their own opinion on discussions happening here.[1] http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/#licen...