Given that this is licensed Creative Commons under Attribution, Non-Commercial, and No Derivative Works, -- and notwithstanding a general desire to respect the authors wishes (
http://blakemasters.tumblr.com/post/22922727433/read-share-p...) -- it becomes a question as to whether it is a truly
derivative work.
Since the meat-and-potatoes of the work is entirely textual, and faithfully reproduced, you could argue that work is non-derivative and within the license.
CC puts two additional restrictions on “transformation” and “alteration,” but it is not clear on what those would be. It would be reasonable to argue in the spirit of the license, that as long as we do not alter the meaning, intent, or spirit of the original work we did not alter or transform it. Any stricter interpretation would like defeat the purpose of licensing something CC, as any form of distribution requires some, however small, amount of altering (eg, I have to convert it to photons before I can hit your retinas).
There are precedents for what is considered a “derivative work” in the US, but usually as to define “new” works that may desire protection, but not likely as many in this reverse situation where we wish to argue that a slightly altered version is equivalent.
If I made printed-to-PDF from my web browser, is that a derivative work? a transformation? a substantial alteration?
If we take a strict (perhaps stretched) interpretation of Masters desires: you should read it only on my website and share only links to it from there? Then why license it as CC BY-NC-ND? Such interpretation of the license gives you no rights you did not have before under fair use (or fair dealing).