Originally Posted by
nobbynobbs
LOL we were so envious of the agreement we happily had a link to icache.
remind me, who was it said that we weren't allowed to display ANY links or info of gc.com event caches because of THEIR agreement?
icache's response on this thread was one sided and an innaccurate summary of the email that had been sent, making it appear to have been a completely legit complaint about site scraping, without permission, from icache or gc.com. Whereas the actual email was short and blunt telling us we had no right to list links to events on our site without the direct insertion by the event owner threatening to report us to gc.com and possibly incur some legal come back for the transgression.
So i hope i have now covered why i have published it here as a direct rebuttal of that thread reply.