3 ms·

Hmm, so someone ripped of your site, and just enough of it is different, that it's probably best to just shrug it off and keep working on your site. But wait,

Hmm, so someone ripped of your site, and just enough of it is different, that it's probably best to just shrug it off and keep working on your site. But wait, there is a comment in the CSS that clearly shows that they ripped it off! This changes everything! Actually, no, it doesn't. This is a distraction. When something weird/awkward like this happens it's probably best to leave it out of the conversation. It would be different if rather than a comment it had been some non-trivial code that directly added functionality to the site, or improved the look and feel. But this is debugging material. BTW I like Hacker Monthly but I don't currently use it, because I'm already fairly comfortable with how I consume articles here. Keep up the good work, though!

daeken 14y ago
Ripping off a site's look and feel is not generally illegal, it's just scummy. However, that (irrelevant) comment in the CSS shows that it is at least somewhat a derivative work, which is often illegal.
- roguecoder 14y ago
  I think it's only scummy if it sets out to confuse users as to which site they are on. Changing both the font and the color scheme would seem to make that less likely. Otherwise, emulating decent look-and-feel is often a good thing: it is how we come to better designs and users with predictable expectations.
  - LeonB 14y ago
    it's not an emulation -- it has hasn't been re-implemented. When you compare the CSS you see it is a complete copy.
LeonB 14y ago
it's not just that comment that is copied. All of the css has been copied, with very minor modifications. He just highlights that comment as it is sufficient proof that the code is copied. So all of the stuff that is non-trivial was copied as well.
pbhjpbhj 14y ago
It doesn't matter if the resulting design is a common form if there is evidence the file was copied then the copyright in the file itself is demonstrably infringed. There's also passing off to consider.

daeken 14y ago

Ripping off a site's look and feel is not generally illegal, it's just scummy. However, that (irrelevant) comment in the CSS shows that it is at least somewhat a derivative work, which is often illegal.

roguecoder 14y ago
I think it's only scummy if it sets out to confuse users as to which site they are on. Changing both the font and the color scheme would seem to make that less likely. Otherwise, emulating decent look-and-feel is often a good thing: it is how we come to better designs and users with predictable expectations.
- LeonB 14y ago
  it's not an emulation -- it has hasn't been re-implemented. When you compare the CSS you see it is a complete copy.

LeonB 14y ago

it's not just that comment that is copied. All of the css has been copied, with very minor modifications. He just highlights that comment as it is sufficient proof that the code is copied. So all of the stuff that is non-trivial was copied as well.

pbhjpbhj 14y ago

It doesn't matter if the resulting design is a common form if there is evidence the file was copied then the copyright in the file itself is demonstrably infringed. There's also passing off to consider.