Hacker News Reader

Comment by Mikeb85 | Hacker News Reader

He didn't obfuscate the source, and indeed the attribution is the very first thing you see in the source (and when it comes to HTML, the source IS the website). And while he didn't comply 100% with the 'default' CC license (which reads that you should state the changes made), he did comply 100% with the 'rules' given by the author. He gave credit, and linked to the website, as well as the specific licensing terms given by the author.

Tl;dr - since he's not selling a template, the copyright at the bottom obviously refers to his own product and not the web template. The attribution is in the correct spot, at the top of the source.

View on HN

What are the norms for attribution when it comes to software? You include a LICENSE file if you're distributing the source, or you display it in your software (like iPhones and Androids).

What are the norms for attribution when it comes to images, videos? The footer. A bar over the bottom of the image. A CC logo. Anything visibly displayed along side the image.

What are the norms of attribution when it comes to website design? The footer, or an About page.

The point is that attribution is made as accessible as possible. It's what keeps the Creative Commons community strong! Deleting the template author's attribution section and relegating it to the SOURCE CODE of the website means that anyone who doesn't know what the source code is (a lot of people) don't know that "hey, this is a template that I can use too!" The attribution is _missing_. It needs to be present with the work, i.e. the web page, and hey, how do you do that? You put the link in the footer, where it was before you deleted it.

Legally speaking, the source code IS the website. There is no difference. If I were to open up the website in a plain text editor, what would I see? It's the same as for any other program - the license resides in the code, not the 'output'.

As for the website template and CC license, it's not an image or a video. It's a collection of CSS, Js and HTML. It's code.

I'd argue that maybe the template should have a code license like the GPL, and not a CC license. And while I'm aware that the CC license is common for website templates, I'm also sure you could convince most courts that it's not an 'image or video'.

Anyhow, I'm sure this could be solved if the creator of the template asked for a little more recognition. Not dragging this guy through the mud for something that's irrelevant to what he actually created. He's not trying to pass off the website as his own, only the actual project itself, which IS his!!!

The CC license (for example http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/) of a template really confuses me as I am not sure that would be considered a contribution in this context.

For example if I include a trademarked logo then does it mean that I have to open source it? Does it affect the content of the page?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com