Legally speaking, the source code IS the website. There is no difference. If I were to open up the website in a plain text editor, what would I see? It's the

Legally speaking, the source code IS the website. There is no difference. If I were to open up the website in a plain text editor, what would I see? It's the same as for any other program - the license resides in the code, not the 'output'. As for the website template and CC license, it's not an image or a video. It's a collection of CSS, Js and HTML. It's code. I'd argue that maybe the template should have a code license like the GPL, and not a CC license. And while I'm aware that the CC license is common for website templates, I'm also sure you could convince most courts that it's not an 'image or video'. Anyhow, I'm sure this could be solved if the creator of the template asked for a little more recognition. Not dragging this guy through the mud for something that's irrelevant to what he actually created. He's not trying to pass off the website as his own, only the actual project itself, which IS his!!!