2 years of the Hacker News London meetup
coderholic.com
coderholic.com
Major congrats to Ben and Dmitri for all their hard work on the meetup. Great work.
Makes me grumpy :-/
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.
If author didn't intend for some files in the repo to be BSD licensed, he should be more explicit.
> 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.
For other people to learn, as an example of how to use rstblog, easy way to contribute fixes for typos and my horrible grammar. Also the actual texts after publishing are creative commons licensed (which however is not an open source license). It comes with strings attached.
> Are you sure you're not proud instead? :)
I am proud that people like it to the extend that they reuse it. I am proud and happy that people generally seem to like what I am doing. However I have an internal conflict with myself how much of that open source spirit applies to visual design, trademarks, logos and more.
I spend a lot of time to figure something out for the Flask project and the styles that go with Flask and extensions. There I have them under a full open source license with the added wish to the license to be a nice person and only use the style for Flask projects, however this is not binding because that would make it hard to get the project into debian.
It's possibly too much trouble to use a comparatively obscure license.
Don't worry too much about it though because I have since changed the design of my website. You were not the first to just copy the design. I would however prefer it a lot if you changed the design.
But I'm curios, why would you prefer he change it? It is a very barebones stylesheet, nice typographical choices but at the end of the day this is hardly a unique design.
And thank you for Flask and other goodies. :)