Uh, so what? It's an incredibly basic design. It's not as if it's some blatant ripoff of an extravagantly designed theme.
They changed the logos and such (so it's not as if they are pretending to BE you), and made the colours their own. I'm not quite sure what you're mad about?
I would disagree with the concept of ownership of any kind of design work. Especially in the case of code considering how one-dimensional CSS is, there's really only one or two ways to build a site like this anyway.
There are lots of free and premium themes to build a "basic site" like this, and anyone can get a license to use the design legally. Why steal from someone who isn't willing to license?
CSS is open source by default, but this doesn't mean there's no copyright.
I'm not talking about current U.S. copyright legislation.
First off, I don't agree with the concept that anyone has the right to 'own' information in the first place (especially lines of code).
It isn't 'stealing'. It's not as if they have deprived hackermonthly of their site. At worst they copied.
I'm not sure what you are saying in regards to CSS being 'open source'. My point was that between syntax and formatting standards, CSS has very little creative control (in terms of the actual writing of the code). Sure you might decide to do 4 space indents, choose one line rules vs. multiple, etc. But usually there is a best way, or most standards compliant way of structuring and styling the design.
What I'm saying is two people coding the same design could easily produce nearly identical code, with the only differences being small irrelevant differences in formatting.
They changed the logos and such (so it's not as if they are pretending to BE you), and made the colours their own. I'm not quite sure what you're mad about?
I would disagree with the concept of ownership of any kind of design work. Especially in the case of code considering how one-dimensional CSS is, there's really only one or two ways to build a site like this anyway.