Website of Theseus

[CrispySeaBreeze]

I intend on crediting the maker of my website's template regardless of how much I change it, but I'm sure lots of people don't after they consider their site changed "enough".
When building a website off a template, how different do you think the final result should be to no longer be considered a template website? If the owner gradually changes the code until none, or almost none, of the template's code is left, could that be considered the owner's original site at that point? I think both yes and no could be considered correct, and I want to hear other opinions. 

[LIQUIDCULT]

These are the philosophical questions which plague us... 

Most sites are built out of code snippets learned from viewing the source code of other peoples sites. I don't think its somehow more inherently original to build your site from only reading off W3Schools and using their tutorials- though I do like to keep a "paper trail" in the form of a link marquee on my blog that includes all the sites I used code from. But they're also mixed in with sites I just think are cool and haven't borrowed anything from. I think its a beautiful tradition to be a part of the web tapestry like that.

As for how much you change a template before its yours... I don't think there is much importance over whether anything becomes more "yours" or not the more you modify it. I think its only a problem if you're somehow claiming you originated the template.

[Lyonid]

I remember my professor once saying that a store where you can buy algorithms would be the end of programming itself. As a creative medium, code can, to some degree, be compared to a brush stroke. While stealing a brush stroke is totally fine, it only becomes meaningful when you have understood and mastered that stroke. I think linking your references and sources is incredibly noble on a website, and I think it's so cool when we do it. However, I struggle with using even the most obscure gif from GifCities, for example, because I have very little information on whether I am allowed to use it. I definitely am, and no one will sue me over it, but I think there is beauty in knowing that anyone who sees my site is able to trace where I got some image from. With website code it seems a bit more difficult, but ultimately, we provide free resources for people to use them.  I don't think that the originality of a site comes from its aesthetics alone, but also from the context that you give it. It has your name, your writing, your url, your updates in them already, and that to me is enough to call it your site and not the one who gave you the resources to create it. I think the beauty of rebuilding a site is also seeing how well you can do without using a reference, and I treat my drawing similarly.

[CrispySeaBreeze]

I realize now my question implied that there *is* a point in which something made by others can become one's own, but I see the answer is a bright gray area. Many things in life are made by others, and inspire and are borrowed by many. The content itself doesn't stand as pieces, but as a whole expression of what the person putting it all together sees it can be. The difference between "made from pieces of other things" and "made entirely by one skilled person" is insignificant except to the people who personally care about those things. A scrapbook of things that someone considers worth reusing is no more or less valuable than something made new. (✿◡‿◡) 

[Seechain]

    
Website of Theseus and Sisyphus Webmaster   

The original template of my site is based on... the Lynx website lol. At first, I wanted it to be navigable from Lynx. A lot of things happened along the way and a big part of the code changed, but I still use the main trick of that template (pushing the menu with a float)