Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

That's not true. Making a "new" version of something that is intentionally a copy of something else is copyright infringement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReactOS#Internal_audit Only clean-room reverse engineering is good enough to avoid copyright claims in the US.


How is this any different from Font Awesome being very similar to the Glyphicons set used in Bootstrap?

A few days ago, when it was posted (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3672526), the comments were largely positive.

I'm not saying that nwienert is necessarily right or wrong, but it's strange that this post received such a strong reaction compared to the Font Awesome post.


Bootstrap is intended for use by whoever wants it. Font Awesome was presented as a tweak, an improvement. Svbtle is intended for a small audience, and Obtvse is a straight rip-off


When it comes to interface design, Lotus vs Borland has "you" covered:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_v._Borland


Copyright infringement? Where is that mentioned on that Wikipedia article?


"The US requires" (via copyright law), and "Intellectual Property" including copyright.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: