Hacker News Reader

They copied strings, and visual design. Both of which are work, both of which are covered by copyright.

Designs and strings are only sometimes covered under copyright.

The elements of a design that are ornamental, utilitarian, or a general look and feel are not covered under copyright but would be covered under a design patent if one exists.

Strings are only covered under copyright if they are a sufficiently original work of human expression. Simple informational messages generally wouldn't qualify.

This was copying many screens, composing layouts and many strings. not a "general look and feel" or one off utility string. Others found parts of the code copied (exact variable names). It would take a court to decide, but I think it's pretty clear cut copyright violation. They gave their agent had access to the EE code, and seemingly asked it to produce a copy. It's not a 1:1 copy, but there was a lot of copying. No clean-room attempt was even made.

If I take the first chapter of Harry Potter and write a new ending, it's still copyright violation. They took many parts.

If they did take sufficiently significant parts of copyrightable components, then yes, it would be a copyright violation. I don't think I saw overwhelming evidence of that in the OP, but certainly there is more to the story.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com