Beside all the discussions, I still think it is a nice website 
4 Likes
Hereās the point to me ā
While I appreciate @webdeerās effort to replicate a site designed by someone else (this is always a fun exercise to do to improve oneās own skills), I donāt think it is remotely appropriate to publish or redistribute it in its current form. In its current form it uses copyrighted materials which were taken directly from a current, live site.
If anyone of you had designed a site for yourselves, spending countless hours crafting and fine tuning it, building out graphics and layouts and troubleshooting things into the late evening hours you would be horrified and angry if someone came behind you and published a copy of your site. Especially if they even went as far as to take your exact graphics, text, etc and use that for their exercise in replicating a layout.
If someone did this to any of the RapidWeaver users on this forum you would be angry. We all would be. So why is it different because it is Realmac Softwareās site? Did they work less hard than you would have? Is their time and effort to build and test a site meaningless? No.
Perhaps it would have been different had @webdeer approached Realmac for permission to do so before actually doing it. But I feel like he probably knew that theyād not be too pleased with that idea, at least as he has currently executed it, so he went ahead and did it and the later asked permission.
I wouldnāt want to see anyone here have their website duplicated by someone else, and it is hard for me to imagine anyone here being OK with someone doing this to them or their fellow RapidWeaver users.
3 Likes
As I stated clearly in my first post, this is a work in progress demo and it is not being distributed in any form. As you know, I have contacted Dan & Ben about it, so it is probably not that healthy to speculate on what Realmac or others think.
As an alternative direction of though, I would hope that Realmac are forward thinking and positive enough to see this as significant and worthy of further discussion. If I was RM I would be questioning a few things. If they decide that they donāt want RW users to know how to put together a site like theirs with such an easy solution, I would be somewhat surprised.
The speculated issue of content is easy enough to sort out with icon, content and image changes if that is indeed an issue. Judging by my mailbox full of interested RW users there is a demand for such a low cost solution.
4 Likes
If they decide that they donāt want RW users to know how to put together a site like theirs with such an easy solution, I would be somewhat surprised.
This is not the problem.
The problem is that youāre using their copyrighted content, verbatim from their site. Iām not sure why youāre not seeing that as a serious problem. Would you be OK if someone built a duplicate of your site and hosted it on their own server? You worked hard to create your site and the content used in it, Iām sure. I seriously doubt that you, or anyone else here would like their hard work being duplicated.
To reply to your analogy, if this someone did it as a demo, with a warning to accept that, and hide the site behind a SiteLock, mention it to me, and showed me how I could have built the site using a low cost route, that brought more features to the mix and fixed any issues with my site - Hell yes. I would be well impressed and want to learn more and not be focused on content. I couldnāt ignore that and would certainly sit up and re-evaluate how I was doing things. If I made a software tool and someone showed me how to do something not currently possible (with available Addons) , again I would sit up and want to learn more.
1 Like
But see, you didnāt ask permission to see what they thought ahead of time. You just did it and then asked afterwards.
Yes, Gary, your demo is hidden behind Sitelok (or whatever), but it is not really hidden: It is public because you posted the link and the access code in the forum. And as I understood it is a template under development (please, correct me if I am wrong).
If you will ever publish a template that is a copy of another website layout I would see it as something like a violation of copyright. As I wrote, it is an interesting project to copy the layout of a website (no matter if you have copied the ālook-and-feelā of the site or the technical backend), but it remains a copy of what other people have created, in what other people have invested time an effort. If the developer of the original agreed it might be fine, but if not it could be seen as a violation of copyright as I wrote before.
Me myself, I often copied existing pro themes (maybe from OneLittleDesigner or Michael David because their themes are wonderful things) by using Foundation. But I did it just for fun and for learning and I never thought about publishing these copies.
I offer some Foundation project templates on www.rapidfoundation.com but these templates are only designed for that purpose. I never would take the projects and their layout I have developed for a customer and build a project template that I can offer on my site. I think I would run into trouble with my customers if I would do so
Just my two cents on that.
1 Like
rollsize
Your first link, tried to replicate although 4pans1 I created a while back, never seen the webpage in your link before
just dropped some stacks in sections, if only the fade would work the other way anyone have an idea with a stack
not sure about copying web designs now
started mobile version have posted before
Nice work!, i started it as well with the help of another forum member iāll have to upload it, used the sections stack and visibility stack for the layout, tried the modal initially with the focus stack but didnāt like the fact i had to use a button. Im going to try it another wayā¦i like the way @webdeer used his reveal with the grid template. Thanks for posting your link!!
it works easier with an unreleased stack, not able to show BWD, a lot easier
Used sections and visibility, couldnāt find a stack to fade the other way, only spent 15 mins on the fade version, if only sections would fade the other way
I used stacks4stacks topbox4 for the modal, need the one I mentioned above
I could upload to compare
possibly but canāt say
Okay, Iāve given this some thought. Iām pleased you like the design we put together for the RapidWeaver site, howeverā¦
- If the project file is 100% free AND users just need RapidWeaver then Iām okay with it.
- If youāre charging money for the template/design, or the users needs to buy add-ons to make it work then Iām not okay with it.
I think thatās fair. Iām sure anyone would be annoyed if someone copied their website and then planned to sell it as a template.
At the end of the day though, I canāt stop you, go ahead and do whatever you feel is right.
Thanks,
Dan
4 Likes
Thanks for your careful consideration. There are some other non free stacks in there (such as the Slider) so that would be an issue but I might well consider providing it for free. I will have to weigh up my investment in time, ongoing stack development and ongoing support.
It is of course 100%RapidWeaver so that isnāt an issue. Perhaps if the supplier of your slider stack made that available for free too, then, perhaps we could make this a community effort. Just thinking out loud really.
I will give this some careful consideration myself.
Alternatively, I could just quickly swap out the icons and images (95% done already) and add my own content.
I will let you know.
I think the timing was just a bit unfortunate for all this. I know when launch date was approaching, one of the things I was most curious was how the new site was going to look, knowing that it was going to be built in RW ā would they use certain stacks, all stock RW stuff, etc. I even thought that there might be a new theme that the site used and then sold to others (and with that purchase, provide a project file so you can see a āreal lifeā use case with it).
Having said that, if there are any reservations with content ownership, that is totally reasonable too (and have had to contend with this issue myself recently). The original post seemed well-intentioned to me.
Timed a bit differently, I think thereās some real marketing value in being able to show how the RW guys use RW (and/or at the same time, maybe allowing Gary to showcase how a reasonably-priced set of add-ons could achieve a similar result by taking a different path).
At least everyone is being transparent about it all
Show page source Realmac website, I assume a custom design?
rw_common/themes/Foundry/
stacks_in com_elixir_stacks_foundryNavigationBar_stack
stacks_in com_elixir_stacks_foundryHeader_stack
stacks_in com_elixir_stacks_foundryParagraph_stack
stacks_in com_elixir_stacks_foundryButton_stack
stacks_in com_elixir_stacks_foundryImage_stack
stacks_in com_elixir_stacks_foundryContainer_stack
stacks_in com_elixir_stacks_foundryColumns_stack
stacks_in com_elixir_stacks_foundryBanner_stack
Or maybe a future productā¦
2 Likes
No, I all ready have 14 of your themes and all your stacks, wife told me to stop collecting (not just your products), bearing in mind I donāt even build websites
Excellent - good themes and stacks
1 Like
any chance you could build in a stack fade the opposite of this dark not light
looks good, well done!
Ignore this post and read the one below this one.
Hey @upssjw, if you want to either PM me your file or leave it here in the thread that you made that site with, I can see if Joeās Image Hover stack will work with Foundation and do that for you.