4 ms·

Your site appears to be open source and you haven't mentioned anywhere that it isn't okay for someone to use your code. Your repository doesn't have a license o

Your site appears to be open source and you haven't mentioned anywhere that it isn't okay for someone to use your code. Your repository doesn't have a license or mention if it's okay for people to re-use elements, but I (and the OP too?) would assume that if it's open source (unless otherwise stated) it's free for anyone to use whatever. He probably should have given credit, but I don't think it would be considered "stealing".

StavrosK 14y ago
It is my understanding that, if there's no license, the author retains all rights, so that's not really a good argument (neither is "why did you put it on GitHub?").
the_mitsuhiko 14y ago
> Your site appears to be open source There is no license anywhere which makes it closed source. The exception to this is that actual content published on the website (notice, this does not cover stuff in the github repository of the same name) is under the Creative Commons attribution-noncommercial-sharealike License which is also not an open source license. In a separate repository there is the build tool for the website which is under an open source license (BSD). > He probably should have given credit, but I don't think it would be considered "stealing". It's against my licensing wishes. I generally don't like the idea of open sourcing visual styles precisely because I do not want other people to have websites that look the same. Visual styles are associated with their creators or companies behind it. For the same reason I license work under the three clause BSD license and not the MIT license. TL;DR: source code available != open source. //EDIT: the source code is on github because it makes it easy for people to see changes being made between revisions of articles if they want and it's an easy way for people to provide pull requests if I make a typo.
wtn 14y ago
By a reasonable reading, the linked repo is BSD licensed (see lucumr/about.rst). If author didn't intend for some files in the repo to be BSD licensed, he should be more explicit.
- the_mitsuhiko 14y ago
  What? The only thing with BSD it says is this: > All of the open source stuff I work on is BSD licensed which means you can do with it whatever you want. Nothing about the website is open source work. It says that if I make something open source it's BSD licensed. You can spot open source work because it comes with a license file that has an open source license in it. The website does not.

StavrosK 14y ago

It is my understanding that, if there's no license, the author retains all rights, so that's not really a good argument (neither is "why did you put it on GitHub?").

the_mitsuhiko 14y ago

> Your site appears to be open source There is no license anywhere which makes it closed source. The exception to this is that actual content published on the website (notice, this does not cover stuff in the github repository of the same name) is under the Creative Commons attribution-noncommercial-sharealike License which is also not an open source license. In a separate repository there is the build tool for the website which is under an open source license (BSD). > He probably should have given credit, but I don't think it would be considered "stealing". It's against my licensing wishes. I generally don't like the idea of open sourcing visual styles precisely because I do not want other people to have websites that look the same. Visual styles are associated with their creators or companies behind it. For the same reason I license work under the three clause BSD license and not the MIT license. TL;DR: source code available != open source. //EDIT: the source code is on github because it makes it easy for people to see changes being made between revisions of articles if they want and it's an easy way for people to provide pull requests if I make a typo.

wtn 14y ago

By a reasonable reading, the linked repo is BSD licensed (see lucumr/about.rst). If author didn't intend for some files in the repo to be BSD licensed, he should be more explicit.

the_mitsuhiko 14y ago
What? The only thing with BSD it says is this: > All of the open source stuff I work on is BSD licensed which means you can do with it whatever you want. Nothing about the website is open source work. It says that if I make something open source it's BSD licensed. You can spot open source work because it comes with a license file that has an open source license in it. The website does not.