08-28-2023, 06:20 AM
|
|
|
Too lazy to set a custom title
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 10,943
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by plsureking
what is your legal or moral basis for avoiding copying or repeating anything that has been built before?
tech doesn't work like that. it would stop growing.
everybody here has owned a website that looked like another website.
when i learned to code as a kid i would copy character by character out of a coding magazine i got once a month.
any code displayed in inspector is creative commons. always has been. obfuscate or copyright your code if you don't want it copied.
that being said, i really hate content pirates. 
# |
These were my points. There are many others:
Quote:
|
Divya Narendra, Cameron Winklevoss, and Tyler Winklevoss, founders of the social network ConnectU, filed a lawsuit against Facebook in September 2004. The lawsuit alleged that Zuckerberg had broken an oral contract to build the social-networking site, copied the idea,[1][2] and used source code that they provided to Zuckerberg to create competing site Facebook.[3][4][5][6] Facebook countersued in regards to Social Butterfly, a project put out by The Winklevoss Chang Group, an alleged partnership between ConnectU and i2hub. It named among the defendants ConnectU, Cameron Winklevoss, Tyler Winklevoss, Divya Narendra, and Wayne Chang, founder of i2hub.[7] The parties reached a settlement agreement in February 2008, for $20 million in cash and 1,253,326 Facebook shares. On August 26, 2010, The New York Times reported that Facebook shares were trading at $76 per share in the secondary market, putting the total settlement value now at close to $120 million.[8][9]
|
Quote:
|
In 2006, two years after Mark Zuckerberg launched thefacebook.com, Greenspan claimed in an open letter to Zuckerberg that Facebook used features that originally belonged to houseSYSTEM.[21] Regarding Greenspan's allegations, years later Zuckerberg was described in The New York Times as "saying through a spokeswoman that he was not sure how to respond".[22] Greenspan later filed a Petition to Cancel the "Facebook" trademark at USPTO.[23] Facebook, Inc. agreed to a formal settlement with Greenspan in late May 2009 and issued a press release, but the terms were not disclosed.[24]
|
... but it does not matter. The case in this thread it is unethical as cases of any reverse engineering are. |
|
|