It's not. And they did it because they altered it slightly to specifically apply to .NET.

The URL on the image is: http://xkcd.com/927/

> it was inspired by XKCD

It's not plagiarizing. It's clearly inspired by XKCD. It says so.

I was quoting smatthews' post that you responded to. The intention was to show that he agrees with you.

Right, I'm well aware that he agrees with me. His posted ended with 'How is that plagiarizing?', a statement that he already knew the answer to (the answer being no). I was continuing the thought. And agreeing with him.

Except they did follow the "license". Specifically,

>> as long as you tell people where they're from.

Which they did. They even included the URL of where it was inspired from.

And even so, it's not up to you to determine what follows the license and what doesn't. It's up to the author and his lawyer(s). Microsoft may have already asked for permission to do what they did, none of us know that.

Furthermore, "not nice" would have been not linking at all. What was done is not "not nice". It could've been better, sure, but it's perfectly okay as is.

Not linking the original location is a fair point and I've fixed that. --Immo

License is likely irrelevant, this would count as parody. Also, why so serious? :)

The person I replied to basically just played the "OMG Plagiarism" card without any real proof, then tried to cite the license to back themselves up.

Art is about stealing and remixing, whilst noting where you got things from. I'm sure Randall understands this, and would not object.