71–80 of 88 posts
This was one of those predictable things. Generally when you start your project on the words "x clone", x is going to take issue with it. Often an application's UI is one of it's greatest assets, and copying it is generally a no-go. Changing the colors of your theme doesn't really substantially change the UI. They should strive to become something of their own, and go after improving past what GitHub offers.
I've been using GitBucket since about version 0.5.0 and I honestly liked the GitBucket UI better before the push to look just like GitHub. Feature-wise, it's behind both GitHub and GitLab, but for company internal repositories, it also doesn't me to risk the security of my server by running RoR. I lost a server to hackers (temporarily) due to an RoR vulnerability that was exposed through Redmine, so perhaps I'm a bit…
That's more of a redmine vuln than a ruby one. Someone can write bad/vulnerable code in any language... I know, I write PHP daily :)
GitHub was not wrong to do this. Gitbucket's UI is confusingly similar to GitHub's so I have no qualms with the actions taken. The good thing is that they took a reasonable approach to this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not defending the ui aping, but GH css is open source: http://primercss.io/layout/ They should have kept it proprietary if their lawyers are touchy about liberal open source licenses. >Open source Available for use under the MIT license and built with open source projects like SCSS, Jekyll, Grunt, and more.
Open source covers the copyright. This is more a trademark issue. The trademark issue is independent of the copyright-openness of their assets, as it is not valid to infringe their trademark either with their assets, or with fully copyright-independent assets.
I think it's kind of funny they start out by saying: At first, we have never copied any materials from GitHub so this is not problem. But later when you scroll to their footer it says: GitBucket is a GitHub clone powered by Scala.
Really Gitbucket should seek to change their UX. Not just the UI. Right now gitbucket looks like a functional clone of github, that's bad. It's possible to appear different, but retain feature-set it's just hard. And obvisously -- I think, you could bundle a legacy Github theme as an addon to gitbucket provided by the community if you really wanted to. Just not ship the product out the door as a 100% clone of github,…
It (to me) would be like Microsoft asking LibreOffice to change their look and feel because it looks too similar to MS Office. LibreOffice is SUPPOSED to look like MS Office so that users can switch without much pain.
Right?
Looking at the screenshot I thought "Wow, I can see why Github would be annoyed at that" before realising that was their proposed not-at-all-like-github-now-honestly new UI. Their demo looks like they just stole Github's CSS templates.
I had exactly the same reaction. There are more screenshots of their previous look in other posts: https://gitbucket.github.io/gitbucket-news/images/gitbucket-... (there's even "GitBucket now supports current GitHub UI" in the post?!) https://gitbucket.github.io/gitbucket-news/images/gitbucket-... https://gitbucket.github.io/gitbucket-news/images/gitbucket-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is a violation of GitHub's ToS. GitBucket is hosted on GitHub.
Which would likely be a violation of anti-trust law, as we learned in the 90s. I hope GitBucket posts the email from Github.