> Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
> ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.
> No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Proper attribution is not optional. While OP's license link might put him in the clear legally (although IANAL, it might not) it is can still be questionable ethically and I agree with the other commenters here thinking it is.
I was only addressing the comment that OP is "trying to leverage their work to your own profits". I agree that the attribution could be more explicit on OP's webpage, but I don't see that for/not-for profit really has anything to do with it (legally or morally).
> Under the following terms:
> Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
> ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.
> No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Proper attribution is not optional. While OP's license link might put him in the clear legally (although IANAL, it might not) it is can still be questionable ethically and I agree with the other commenters here thinking it is.