4 ms·

It's perfectly valid to criticize the original license choice. GPLv3 is a very restrictive license, especially for what is essentially a micro blog (though I d

It's perfectly valid to criticize the original license choice. GPLv3 is a very restrictive license, especially for what is essentially a micro blog (though I dislike the license for most open source software anyway). Add on the original author going after a bit of CSS, not even the main effort of the project in question, and you've got my "petty" comment.

apolymath 6y ago
There is an artist who takes images from magazines, repurposes them for his own art, and sells them for hundreds of thousands of dollars, then gets sued by the magazines & photographers & artists, and guess what, HE WINS AGAINST THOSE LAWSUITS. Copyright is BS, especially concerning HTML & CSS code. What a joke.
jasonlotito 6y ago
You didn't answer my question. That pretty much says all that needs to be said.
- thelean12 6y ago
  My answer is less useful to the discussion. But here you go: 1. I wouldn't use GPLv3 2. I wouldn't care if people stole my code that I open sourced or if they tried to license it a different way. 3. I personally follow the license of others when using their code. I wouldn't steal GPLv3 code without proper attribution etc. That's their right. All that doesn't go against my initial opinion: GPLv3 for a small micro blog templating system is lame. Enforcing it for a bit of CSS is petty.
  - coronadisaster 6y ago
    > All that doesn't go against my initial opinion: GPLv3 for a small micro blog templating system is lame. Enforcing it for a bit of CSS is petty. It is a matter of principle, probably?
- chinhodado 6y ago
  Not the parent but your question and the implicit accusation is way too overblown. The design here is so generic that it can easily be used by tons of site out there. It's just a few lines of CSS here and there and if I have a design like that and come across something similar I would just chalk it up to someone with similar taste. Going out of your way to demand attribution for it is the very definition of petty.

apolymath 6y ago

There is an artist who takes images from magazines, repurposes them for his own art, and sells them for hundreds of thousands of dollars, then gets sued by the magazines & photographers & artists, and guess what, HE WINS AGAINST THOSE LAWSUITS. Copyright is BS, especially concerning HTML & CSS code. What a joke.

jasonlotito 6y ago

You didn't answer my question. That pretty much says all that needs to be said.

thelean12 6y ago
My answer is less useful to the discussion. But here you go: 1. I wouldn't use GPLv3 2. I wouldn't care if people stole my code that I open sourced or if they tried to license it a different way. 3. I personally follow the license of others when using their code. I wouldn't steal GPLv3 code without proper attribution etc. That's their right. All that doesn't go against my initial opinion: GPLv3 for a small micro blog templating system is lame. Enforcing it for a bit of CSS is petty.
- coronadisaster 6y ago
  > All that doesn't go against my initial opinion: GPLv3 for a small micro blog templating system is lame. Enforcing it for a bit of CSS is petty. It is a matter of principle, probably?
chinhodado 6y ago
Not the parent but your question and the implicit accusation is way too overblown. The design here is so generic that it can easily be used by tons of site out there. It's just a few lines of CSS here and there and if I have a design like that and come across something similar I would just chalk it up to someone with similar taste. Going out of your way to demand attribution for it is the very definition of petty.