Wednesday, August 20, 2008

New Media Maze Rebuttal

New Media Maze have issued a number of rebuttals to the contentious question on the use of someone else's code on the Downing Street website theme. Read them in full:
Make your own mind up.

Update: They even left the How To Post Images In This Theme document on the server. All a bit sloppy really.


labourparty said...

//With this in mind, and in the hope that we can put the matter to bed, I extend the offer I made to Anthony: If one of you (on behalf of the whole blogging community) wants to come to my office in Hoxton Square, at a pre-agreed time and under supervision, you can compare the code and satisfy for yourself that our code is completely original and in no way borrows from Anthony’s work. 2 conditions:

1. You put the record straight on your blog afterwards
2. You’ll accept my offer of a nice cup of tea.//

So you'll be going to check that what you've alleged is true or not then Dizzy?

dizzy said...

Can you quote me the allegations that I have made that need to be shown to be true because all I can see are questions and queries about the code and how it appears in publicly accessible files. Looking at closed source in restricted condition is meaningless given that my posts have been referring to publicly accessible file.

Here are the facts. The Number 10 Website uses a CSS file at the top of each page in which is contains code that was released under Creative Commons and no attribution has been made on the website as per the license agreement of it's use. Even New Media Maze do not deny this. The sticking point is whether they have rebuilt their CSS from scratch or not, which, when a comparison is made between their CSS fiel and an original theme file, shows up strikingly similar code similarities suggesting that work is derivative.

THe closed sources files, as I say, are irrelevant to all the points I have raised.

The Open Sourcerer said...

My thoughts on the farce so far:

Anonymous said...

Dizzy you're wrong, but i've a feeling you won't be persuaded so this is the last from me then as you say, your readers can decide.

Here's a summary:

1. The only file that was drawn upon from Ant’s theme was the css file. Ant accepts this fact:

2. Under Ant’s theme license (CCL), there was no requirement to attribute the work to him in the footer.

3. Under the license, he was correctly attributed in the CSS file that was used.

4. Therefore we have abided by the license of Ant’s work.

Just one last point:

"Can you quote me the allegations that I have made that need to be shown to be true because all I can see are questions and queries"

ever thought about going into politics yourself?

Dave Smith over and out.

Anonymous said...

Dizzy runs away from most things, so there's little point in suggesting that he backs up any of his shite with evidence. Just doesn't suit his agenda of smear and spin.

The Open Sourcerer said...

Dizzy, something is a bit smelly with Dave's comment about "The only file that was drawn upon from Ant’s theme was the css file".

dizzy said...

Yes anon, I have an agenda. I'm in the pay of dark evil forces, I don't have a job, I don't live in the real world, it's all just a smear and spin operation. :rolleyes:

As I happens I contated NMM with the intention of seeing the code and asking some questions about their use of Wordpress. Dave told me I had to deal woith Number 10's press office and not his company. So, yes, I ran away.

Shug Niggurath said...

Anytime I do a website 'from scratch', I typically build the basic columns, header, footer layouts in a brand new file and then populate that as I go.

I quite often refer back to something I've done earlier to save time (and effort) and if I see something I like elsewhere I will look at the CSS behind it.

What I don't do is take an existing piece of CSS and change some of the entries and colour code and then call it my own work.