3 ms·

From the Twitter post: > This is getting ridiculous: the Svbtle design is not open source, and I have never given permission for anyone to use it with Wordpres

From the Twitter post: > This is getting ridiculous: the Svbtle design is not open source, and I have never given permission for anyone to use it with Wordpress. Dude. Without trademarks, patents, or copyright, there's not much you can do. There is no permission for you to give or not give, unless your actual code is being ripped off. There is no "open source" license that the Svbtle design could be licensed under even if you wanted to do so. You could probably get a patent on the design. Apple has patents on rounded corners and page turning, for example. Once you publish something or offer it for sale in the US, you have one year to file for a patent. You still have time, but of course, IANAL.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
mmahemoff 14y ago
Whether he has legal recourse, he can still call people out on it. These Svbtle clones are way beyond "taking inspiration" the way one phone takes inspiration from another and incrementally improves or differentiates on it. They're blatantly, outright, misleading. I had no idea it was a clone until now. Also IANAL but I think it's more likely to be protected by copyright than a patent, which means there's no short-term limit like that.
- georgeorwell 14y ago
  What is the difference between this and GNU reimplementing the standard Unix utilities? Software and hardware cloning has always been at the heart of the tech industry.
- mmahemoff 14y ago
  georgeorwell, they didn't copy the manual and logo (or even the implementations). They just built a compatible interface. To a human, a blog with a different theme would still be a compatible interface. It's one thing to clone hardware or software, but another to misrepresent it as being from the same source as the original.
  - georgeorwell 14y ago
    I agree that the "DESIGN BY @DCURTIS" is misrepresentation and I assumed it was part of the Svbtle network too.
delinka 14y ago
"Without...copyright..." He holds the copyright to the html code, css, etc, the moment he writes it. He holds the sole right to license his work. You (figurative "you") don't see a license? That means it hasn't been licensed to you and your re-use of it constitutes copyright infringement.
- georgeorwell 14y ago
  That's why I wrote, "unless your actual code is being ripped off." I understand that if it isn't a reimplementation, it is copyright infringement. I strongly doubt that this is what is happening, but if it is, dcurtis should get a lawyer. He should probably get a lawyer anyway if he's serious about protecting his work.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

mmahemoff 14y ago

Whether he has legal recourse, he can still call people out on it. These Svbtle clones are way beyond "taking inspiration" the way one phone takes inspiration from another and incrementally improves or differentiates on it. They're blatantly, outright, misleading. I had no idea it was a clone until now. Also IANAL but I think it's more likely to be protected by copyright than a patent, which means there's no short-term limit like that.

georgeorwell 14y ago
What is the difference between this and GNU reimplementing the standard Unix utilities? Software and hardware cloning has always been at the heart of the tech industry.
mmahemoff 14y ago
georgeorwell, they didn't copy the manual and logo (or even the implementations). They just built a compatible interface. To a human, a blog with a different theme would still be a compatible interface. It's one thing to clone hardware or software, but another to misrepresent it as being from the same source as the original.
- georgeorwell 14y ago
  I agree that the "DESIGN BY @DCURTIS" is misrepresentation and I assumed it was part of the Svbtle network too.

delinka 14y ago

"Without...copyright..." He holds the copyright to the html code, css, etc, the moment he writes it. He holds the sole right to license his work. You (figurative "you") don't see a license? That means it hasn't been licensed to you and your re-use of it constitutes copyright infringement.

georgeorwell 14y ago
That's why I wrote, "unless your actual code is being ripped off." I understand that if it isn't a reimplementation, it is copyright infringement. I strongly doubt that this is what is happening, but if it is, dcurtis should get a lawyer. He should probably get a lawyer anyway if he's serious about protecting his work.