Re: TRACE

(Anonymous) 2015-11-17 01:09 am (UTC)(link)
she's making money off of customising a free resource. let's be clear on that. if the layout coder wants to make the money, fine that's cool but then they need to line that out in their rules for using the code so this doesn't happen to them.

otherwise i have zero sympathy.

and as i said if she stripped off the credits that's on her.

da

(Anonymous) 2015-11-17 01:21 am (UTC)(link)
so you wouldn't be pissed off if someone took your work, changed the cover page, then sold it off?

Re: da

(Anonymous) 2015-11-17 01:22 am (UTC)(link)
if i was offering to the public for free? no. if i had posted it under the assumption people would come to me for commissions. yes.

Re: da

(Anonymous) 2015-11-17 01:24 am (UTC)(link)
so you would have no problem with offering something to people for free, only for someone to turn around and try to make a profit off your generosity?

Re: da

(Anonymous) 2015-11-17 01:25 am (UTC)(link)
[community profile] pagans

now look at the sidebar.

Re: da

(Anonymous) 2015-11-17 01:26 am (UTC)(link)
A coding dump for layouts, tables, whatever. Done for fun, don't take it seriously, credit & comments aren't necessary but they're appreciated. If something screws up, just holler.

Taking coding requests and commissions, just shoot me a PM.


so she stripped the credit because it says she can. the coder is taking commissions, i will give you that one.

Re: da

(Anonymous) 2015-11-17 01:32 am (UTC)(link)
except on the layout she did rip off, the coder wrote NOT to take the credit line out.

Re: da

(Anonymous) 2015-11-17 01:34 am (UTC)(link)
A+ on them contradicting themselves then.

nayrt

(Anonymous) 2015-11-17 02:05 am (UTC)(link)
wow you're an asshole

da

(Anonymous) 2015-11-17 11:05 am (UTC)(link)
actually...

"Do not take out the credit line on my layouts, please."

straight out of their profile anon. justify it how you like, trace still ignored that and deliberately made the choice to delete it out of the original layout code. therefore repurposing it as her "own" regardless of what her "fine print" says. which is shitty no matter what kind of air freshener you use to cover up that stench. think of it as erasing a signature or watermark - there's no way you can "accidentally" do that and most people would call that theft.

Re: da

(Anonymous) 2015-11-17 01:41 pm (UTC)(link)
I don't like trace and I think this wank is the least of her crimes, especially now she's closed commissions, but I'm confused on one thing.

doesn't she say that the blank journal css she's using (describing css which "blanks" the journal, making it a blank page for the nav code to sit on) was given to her by someone called mj? so isn't it going to be mj who took out the credit?

Re: da

(Anonymous) 2015-11-17 02:32 pm (UTC)(link)
For all we know mj is pagans so I don't understand why people want to bring out the pitchforks

Re: da

(Anonymous) 2015-11-17 06:39 pm (UTC)(link)
pagans is danzy
mj plays at ataraxion and mods at fade rift. her remus journal is the first time I saw one of those blank splash pages.

Re: da

(Anonymous) 2015-11-17 08:25 pm (UTC)(link)
view-source:http://fullmoon.dreamwidth.org/

tl;dr mj's remus journal has the original coder's credit intact, so trace did remove it on her own.

Re: TRACE

(Anonymous) 2015-11-17 01:23 am (UTC)(link)
"it's their fault they got ripped off, they didn't protect their work enough!"

anon. really.

Re: TRACE

(Anonymous) 2015-11-17 01:25 am (UTC)(link)
yes, really. this happens all the time in the professional world if you don't protect your work. people are asshole line out your rules clearly so they can't be assholes to you.

#Life Lessons On Wankgate

Re: TRACE

(Anonymous) 2015-11-17 01:30 am (UTC)(link)
i design websites for a living, and actually you can get sued for what trace is doing. shouldn't be sued? sure. doesn't keep it from happening though!

#protips on wg

Re: TRACE

(Anonymous) 2015-11-17 01:37 am (UTC)(link)
yes but when you code websites do you offer up your codes for free to the internet? if the answer is no your argument is invalid. being able to sue someone under, what you would be using here, which is copyright law entails proving how much they "stole". if, like pagans, are you saying it's fine to edit and use or whatever you don't have a leg to stand on.

#law protips on wg

Re: TRACE

(Anonymous) 2015-11-17 02:06 am (UTC)(link)
do you even understand how websites work??????

Re: TRACE

(Anonymous) 2015-11-17 02:31 pm (UTC)(link)
keep moving those goal posts.

Nayrt

(Anonymous) 2015-11-17 10:16 pm (UTC)(link)
it's a legit question though. even if code is open source, web content still counts as IP, and even if it's available publicly it doesn't automatically make it public domain property, otherwise you're stripping a lot of authors of their IP rights just for putting something out for free.

Re: TRACE

(Anonymous) 2015-11-17 01:33 am (UTC)(link)
no. sorry, but no.

a thief who steals things and sells them off is still a thief, whether it was easy to steal or not.

welcome to the real world. you don't get off by saying "but they should have locked it away!"