Slashdot Mirror
Copyrights on Web Interfaces
wildag writes "I've recently come into a battle with a guy who owns
this site.
You might notice the 'similarities' between his web site and
Linux.com.
I'm going to doubt that Linux.com bought the interface from him. The acutal battle comes from a statment that is on his message board (posted by the admin - Leo). He says 'The layout of any website is "public domain" which is freely available to the public' (that is avaliable here: http://hobbes.resne t.tamu.edu/forums/showthread.php?threadid=25). What do you guys think? (BTW, Linux.com has been notified and he didn't ask permission)." There are countless websites that are direct ripoffs of others, but few as blatant as this one. My policy with Slashdot has always pretty much been take what you want, but give us credit for what ya lift. I've seen this done many times to many sites and it always bums me out: making a well designed website is hard work, and imitation is the sincerest form of flattery... but isn't saying thanks and crediting your source part of it too? (For those who don't know, Slashdot is owned by VA Linux now, which also owns Linux.com. This doesn't really have anything to do with this story, but I figured I'd mention it). I post this not to point fingers or cause a fight, but to open a discussion about this. Just because you can take something, should you? When are you stealing? Is is hypocritical to demand open source, but not be willing to share your design? And should "Sharing" mean "You can take it, and claim it as your own, and not give the original creator any credit?" Its an issue that spans genres: Web Pages? Source Code? Samples in Music? Fair Use?
give credit where credit is due. If you run slashcode, then you (should) have a Slash logo with a link to slashcode.com, and it would seem appropriate to provide a link to Slashdot, too. In this case, I'd think that a link to linux.com and certainly a nice writeup on the credits page (like "the layout of this site was inspired by linux.com, blah, blah")... besides, this is a kid's site on his linux box in his dorm room (yes, he does host autctions). I think we could cut him some slack here - this really isn't a commercial website, so it shouldn't be a big deal. Likewise, he should give credit for the layout. Really not much of a problem, though.
--
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
Well, IMO there's nothing wrong with web pages being laid out the same way. The point of a web page is to convey information, not to come up with a flashy interface. Personally I get pretty fed up with having to study a page just to figure out where they put things, and would love it if more web sites had a consistant format.
Now that doesn't mean I totally agree with this guy. Until it becomes common for sites to follow certain layout standards, the very least he could (and probably should) do is give credit to where he got his source. Creating a similar layout and just copying the source and changing a few words are two completely different things. I didn't think to look, but I wouldn't be suprised if you checked out the page source and saw comments from the original linux.com site.
-Space for rent
The View Source button in every web browser is a tool for stealing! It should be banned IMMEDIATELY! Just think -- ANYONE can go to your PRIVATE homepage and download the source code! You worked DAYS on that font size -4 text with the bright yellow background! That javascript fade background code took MINUTES of removing the comments!
I have yet to see a single web page design WORTH stealing, geez.
I look at web design this way. It is sort of like a book or magazine. All books, magazines, newspapers, etc... have the same basic look and feel. Lets examine a newspaper. There are columns of text and graphics placed on a page. All newspapers follow this format. Websites are the same way, text and graphics are layed out on a page. This could be viewed as the design.
I personally have no problems with anyone copying my design, layout, whatever you want to call it. Just like a newspaper they can have the same general layout.
The place where the line is drawn is when they start copying content without permission, including graphics.
After taking a look at the two sites in question it is obvious that hobbes copied the news graphic from linux.com. Did he gain permission for this? If not then he is violating copyright. If he has permission to use this grpaic and all his content is original, I dont see a problem.
"it could just be the midgets. You've got to be careful with midgets in Spandex." --Jamie Richardson
...this is the road that RMS and the FSF want to lead us down. No IP rights, and no recourse against people who "share" the output of your hard work. If you complain, you are automatically being selfish, since information wants to be shared, and you are obviously a petty capitalist just interested in the fast buck.
Something to think about, isn't it?
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
Specifical, read this FAQ:
The site seems to potentially violate both of those.
Work for Change & GET PAID!
I posted something similiar to this a month or so back, but it bears repeating.
It is important to Microsoft to make money, and they have written restrictive licenses to accomplish that end.
It is important for academics to gain prestige and recognition for themselves and their organizations, and they write restrictive licenses (use only with attributions) to accomplish that end.
It is important for free software advocates to make all software completely free and always open, and they write restrictive licenses (the GPL) to accomplish those ends.
It is important to me to show people God's love in practical ways, and I wrote my restrictive license (LGPL with a further explanation of intent) for my open source published software to accomplish that end.
It is important for musicians to control their message and generate income, and they write restrictive licenses to accomplish that end.
So, do we honor the original authors wishes, or is intellectual property immoral... you can't have it both ways! It is either totally free (not only as in beer and speech, but even further as in total lawless anarchy), or it is "owned" by the original author and you must respect their "license" that meets their goals and desires if you wish to use their work.
Bill Kilgallon
Mathematically impossible requirements are technically not against policy.
Normally I'd say horking some else's style is not illegal, but in this case, he ripped the actual icons off of linux.com. As I write this, the "News" icons on linux.com and that tamu site are the same thing.
The open source movement has turned previously canonical rules of intellectual property on their head. However - they have done so by working within the rules. The open source community depends on the GPL and its brethren, which are _still_ all licensing schemes, they're just open. Working within that framework gives the holders of these rights the ability A: To revoke (unless the GPL totally revokes all rights, you retain them (I haven't read the GPL, I don't know)) and B: to choose what you want to keep and what you want to give away.
Put metaphorically - just because I let you use my pool doesn't mean I want you also sleeping with my wife in my bed.
It is _not_ hypocritical to have an open source/public good for one piece of software but maintain proprietary rights in something else. Just b/c someone has given away _some_ of their intellectual property doesn't mean that they've decided to give it _all_ away. If a hobbyist works on a widget for the next Red Hat distro and it gets burned in, do you also expect said hobbyist to give away all of his copyright material in some other field? Illogical.
Giving away something does not equate to giving away everything.
Unless the new Linux argument is "do away with money" and if so, email me, and I'll tell you where you can send the pre-IPO shares of your company.
---
There are no logical paradoxes. If two things seem to conflict, check your premises. One of them is usually wrong. -- Ayn Rand (Via Hugh Akston)