Live data from Hacker News

Flat UI, mirrored

github.com

101–103 of 103 posts

Re: Flat UI, mirrored

#101
post #95
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they would often happily implement the same idea someone else had from scratch without any qualms There is only one MD5. There is only one preorder traversal of a binary tree. Creativity is essential, but unless you do those kinds of things the same way as everyone else, you're doing them wrong and will get the wrong results.

>There is only one MD5. >you're doing them wrong and will get the wrong results. I don't guess you're a developer or coder. Being that the speed of MD5 has increased greatly on the same hardware over the years has shown there are many, if not infinite ways of finding an md5sum. Essentially code is math and number are infinite. You could calculate a number with multiplication and call it NumberTwizzle(TM), I could the…

English must not be your first language. Read for comprehension and post something that's actually responsive to my post.

Re: Flat UI, mirrored

#102
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they would often happily implement the same idea someone else had from scratch without any qualms There is only one MD5. There is only one preorder traversal of a binary tree. Creativity is essential, but unless you do those kinds of things the same way as everyone else, you're doing them wrong and will get the wrong results.

I think you've missed the point. There are dozens different of implementations of each. As far as I know, nobody got DMCAed by the inventors of either for writing one. Yet here, we have designers trying to claim ownership of a particular set of colours and a vague notion of style. Both of which were around before their "implementation" was.

But only one method, only one underlying design. That's the point here.

> Yet here, we have designers trying to claim ownership of a particular set of colours and a vague notion of style.

Exactly my point.

Re: Flat UI, mirrored

#103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you've missed the point. There are dozens different of implementations of each. As far as I know, nobody got DMCAed by the inventors of either for writing one. Yet here, we have designers trying to claim ownership of a particular set of colours and a vague notion of style. Both of which were around before their "implementation" was.

But only one method, only one underlying design. That's the point here. > Yet here, we have designers trying to claim ownership of a particular set of colours and a vague notion of style. Exactly my point.

It's not clear to me from your comment whether you are agreeing or misunderstanding.

The underlying method is an idea, not an implementation. It is not subject to copyright.

It might be patentable in some places, but that has nothing to do with the DMCA.

Developers generally scorn software patents (owning an idea) but respect copyright (owning an implementation).

The designers here are trying to assert copyright over an idea, which you absolutely cannot do.

Post reply on HN