3 ms·

That is exactly what he did. Just because it's closed source doesn't mean it's fair to make an identical copy (in the interface and interaction design sense) th

by dcurtis 15y ago

That is exactly what he did. Just because it's closed source doesn't mean it's fair to make an identical copy (in the interface and interaction design sense) that is free.

redment 15y ago
I'm not very well-versed in this type of stuff but I want to ask you an honest question: Is creating an open-source alternative to a closed-source software considered theft?
- masklinn 15y ago
  > Is creating an open-source alternative to a closed-source software considered theft? Not under any definition of "theft" in use outside IP troll offices, as far as I know.
- sp332 15y ago
  In terms of design, yes. He didn't just make something that performs the same function. He took Dustin's ideas and visual design so directly that it might even legally count as copyright infringement. Since dcurtis's work is not licensed for this use, making a copy might not be legal. And since he wanted to keep it closed for a while, lifting all his hard work into your own project is not cool.
- JoshTriplett 15y ago
  > Is creating an open-source alternative to a closed-source software considered theft? No, never, as long as the open-source alternative doesn't actually copy any copyrightable material from the original (such as images or other data). And I don't see any signs of that here. On the contrary, creating an open-source alternative to closed-source software is considered awesome.
  - jacobr 15y ago
    Even if it copied material from the original, it would not be theft. It would be copyright infringement.
    - JoshTriplett 15y ago
      Good catch, yes; I hadn't intended to imply otherwise.
amirmc 15y ago
That is completely ridiculous.
appleflaxen 15y ago
"theft" is so incorrect that you damage the credibility of your argument by using the term. You have a social/emotional complaint: someone took your good idea (and kudos to you: it's a great idea!), and duplicated it. But it's recognized (and documented here) that you were the progenitor of the idea, and if you eventually open source the original, I can't see how this will "hurt" you. People have an innate sense of fairness, and duplicating ideas like this goes against it in a small way. But it's not theft (or even copyright infringement), and by overreacting you are going to alienate people who would otherwise be sympathetic.
j_c 15y ago
There is no original thought here, the design and idea are identical, whether it's technically right or wrong, this shouldn't be encouraged. Feel for you here dcurtis, and surprised people are actually behind this.
- dorian-graph 15y ago
  I'm also quite surprised, and disappointed.
joeconway 15y ago
I'm really not condoning the infringement here or trying to act as Captain Hindsight. But having shown something brilliant but closed to a community of interested and talented people, did you not partially expect this?
Void_ 15y ago
If the design wasn't so similar you wouldn't even notice it's a "rip off". Plus, your value is not the app, it's the people in the network, so stay calm and let us not-so-cool people use the open-source clone.
- sp332 15y ago
  dcurtis is a professional designer. The amount of work that went into the design of the app was probably huge. If he's making his living as a designer, ripping off his design against his wishes could actually damage his business.
  - Strallus 15y ago
    That's a faulty conclusion. Being a professional designer has no bearing on how much time you spend designing something. In fact, you could assume the opposite: that, because he is a professional designer, it took him less time to design the app than it would've taken a "layman". (I'm not forgetting about the perfectionism of many designers, mind you)
    - 54mf 15y ago
      It has incredible bearing. Let's presume it took him 1 hour to design the site. (It surely took dozens or hundreds, including modifications and improvements, but play along.) That 1 hour isn't just 1 hour. It's 1 hour, plus the 5 or 10 or 15 years he has spent living and breathing design, refining his abilities and sharpening his understanding of the craft. He can do a singular design faster than a "layman" because he has spent a significantly greater amount of time on Design in general.
      - Strallus 15y ago
        Umm, yeah. It still took one hour of his time, regardless of how much experience he has. If someone rips of this idea, and he loses out, he has lost one hour of his time; not ten years.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
jforman 15y ago
Somewhere, Richard Stallman is weeping.
kellysutton 15y ago
Sure, Dustin doesn't have the the trademarks for svbtle registered (yet), but completely ripping off someone else's work or defending the action is neither honorable nor moral. You can't go around putting the Coke label on different fizzy beverages. Svbtle is obviously popular for its brand. You are stealing its brand and using it for unintended purposes. The only value in what you've created is that it looks like Dustin's work. Ripping that off wholesale diminishes the value of something Dustin work(ed/s) very hard to create and curate. Thousands of decisions went into that design. The design is a mark of quality. Show some respect.
- Strallus 15y ago
  1. Svbtle is not yet popular. Six members != "popular". 2. Brand? What brand? It's a blogging platform. People don't want it because of a brand. They want it because it's a good idea (simplistic blogging). 3. Coke has a trademarked label. This is merely a website. What is dustin going to trademark/copyright? The ratio of whitespace to small, grey lines?

by dcurtis 15y ago

That is exactly what he did. Just because it's closed source doesn't mean it's fair to make an identical copy (in the interface and interaction design sense) that is free.

redment 15y ago

I'm not very well-versed in this type of stuff but I want to ask you an honest question: Is creating an open-source alternative to a closed-source software considered theft?

masklinn 15y ago
> Is creating an open-source alternative to a closed-source software considered theft? Not under any definition of "theft" in use outside IP troll offices, as far as I know.
sp332 15y ago
In terms of design, yes. He didn't just make something that performs the same function. He took Dustin's ideas and visual design so directly that it might even legally count as copyright infringement. Since dcurtis's work is not licensed for this use, making a copy might not be legal. And since he wanted to keep it closed for a while, lifting all his hard work into your own project is not cool.
JoshTriplett 15y ago
> Is creating an open-source alternative to a closed-source software considered theft? No, never, as long as the open-source alternative doesn't actually copy any copyrightable material from the original (such as images or other data). And I don't see any signs of that here. On the contrary, creating an open-source alternative to closed-source software is considered awesome.
- jacobr 15y ago
  Even if it copied material from the original, it would not be theft. It would be copyright infringement.
  - JoshTriplett 15y ago
    Good catch, yes; I hadn't intended to imply otherwise.

amirmc 15y ago

That is completely ridiculous.

appleflaxen 15y ago

"theft" is so incorrect that you damage the credibility of your argument by using the term. You have a social/emotional complaint: someone took your good idea (and kudos to you: it's a great idea!), and duplicated it. But it's recognized (and documented here) that you were the progenitor of the idea, and if you eventually open source the original, I can't see how this will "hurt" you. People have an innate sense of fairness, and duplicating ideas like this goes against it in a small way. But it's not theft (or even copyright infringement), and by overreacting you are going to alienate people who would otherwise be sympathetic.

j_c 15y ago

There is no original thought here, the design and idea are identical, whether it's technically right or wrong, this shouldn't be encouraged. Feel for you here dcurtis, and surprised people are actually behind this.

dorian-graph 15y ago
I'm also quite surprised, and disappointed.

joeconway 15y ago

I'm really not condoning the infringement here or trying to act as Captain Hindsight. But having shown something brilliant but closed to a community of interested and talented people, did you not partially expect this?

Void_ 15y ago

If the design wasn't so similar you wouldn't even notice it's a "rip off". Plus, your value is not the app, it's the people in the network, so stay calm and let us not-so-cool people use the open-source clone.

sp332 15y ago
dcurtis is a professional designer. The amount of work that went into the design of the app was probably huge. If he's making his living as a designer, ripping off his design against his wishes could actually damage his business.
- Strallus 15y ago
  That's a faulty conclusion. Being a professional designer has no bearing on how much time you spend designing something. In fact, you could assume the opposite: that, because he is a professional designer, it took him less time to design the app than it would've taken a "layman". (I'm not forgetting about the perfectionism of many designers, mind you)
  - 54mf 15y ago
    It has incredible bearing. Let's presume it took him 1 hour to design the site. (It surely took dozens or hundreds, including modifications and improvements, but play along.) That 1 hour isn't just 1 hour. It's 1 hour, plus the 5 or 10 or 15 years he has spent living and breathing design, refining his abilities and sharpening his understanding of the craft. He can do a singular design faster than a "layman" because he has spent a significantly greater amount of time on Design in general.
    - Strallus 15y ago
      Umm, yeah. It still took one hour of his time, regardless of how much experience he has. If someone rips of this idea, and he loses out, he has lost one hour of his time; not ten years.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

jforman 15y ago

Somewhere, Richard Stallman is weeping.

kellysutton 15y ago

Sure, Dustin doesn't have the the trademarks for svbtle registered (yet), but completely ripping off someone else's work or defending the action is neither honorable nor moral. You can't go around putting the Coke label on different fizzy beverages. Svbtle is obviously popular for its brand. You are stealing its brand and using it for unintended purposes. The only value in what you've created is that it looks like Dustin's work. Ripping that off wholesale diminishes the value of something Dustin work(ed/s) very hard to create and curate. Thousands of decisions went into that design. The design is a mark of quality. Show some respect.

Strallus 15y ago
1. Svbtle is not yet popular. Six members != "popular". 2. Brand? What brand? It's a blogging platform. People don't want it because of a brand. They want it because it's a good idea (simplistic blogging). 3. Coke has a trademarked label. This is merely a website. What is dustin going to trademark/copyright? The ratio of whitespace to small, grey lines?