Cover image for post No new content from me at phpfreaks (hopefully)

No new content from me at phpfreaks (hopefully)

As I posted a few days ago, I was (and still am) very upset, that still aggregated my content through the feed of While I appreciate that aggregates my content, I dislike the way does it (with adding ads to my literal words).

Anyway, Chris (alias Enygma) from asked me, if he is still allowed to aggregate my content and I naturally agreed with it. He offered my, to try blocking to aggregate my parts of his re-contribution of my content. I fully agreed with that and it seems to work, so far. The recent posts of my content on did not get aggregated.

Thanks to Chris for that!!

Anyway, some of my old posts (either from my blog itself or from are still shown on I still disagree with that and I am in contact with 2 of the local lawyers (one for national, one for international law) to clarify the situation. It looks like there are good chances, that I really can forbid them by law to display my content on their site. I will probably post more on that issue later.

Beside of this, I added a CreativeCommons license to all of my blog entries, to ensure, that I clearly provided the license terms my content is provided on. If you are aggregating my content so far, do not hesitate: If I dislike it, I will clearly announce that to you, before starting to bother about that publicly or taking any legal actions. If you want to do it: Stick to the terms provided by the license or quickly ask me for an exception and I will permit it.

So long, let's see, what my lawyers state and how reacts. Maybe I will come around having some real legal issues with them, if they remove all of my content from their website or stop their "in text"-ads. Else I will see, how I can get rid of this in a legal way.


no problem...I'm happy to do filtering like that at anyone's request.

Oh, and it's "enygma" not "enigma" ;)

enygma at 2006-07-26

Woops. Fixed. :)

Toby at 2006-07-26

Enygma's posts would be "derivative works" right?

Aaron Wormus at 2006-07-26

Correct. And he has the explicit permission from me to derive it. :)

All others (except still have the implicit permission from me (maybe I should state that additionally).

Toby at 2006-07-26