That is exactly what he did. Just because it's closed source doesn't mean it's fair to make an identical copy (in the interface and interaction design sense) that is free.
"theft" is so incorrect that you damage the credibility of your argument by using the term.
You have a social/emotional complaint: someone took your good idea (and kudos to you: it's a great idea!), and duplicated it. But it's recognized (and documented here) that you were the progenitor of the idea, and if you eventually open source the original, I can't see how this will "hurt" you. People have an innate sense of fairness, and duplicating ideas like this goes against it in a small way.
But it's not theft (or even copyright infringement), and by overreacting you are going to alienate people who would otherwise be sympathetic.
I'm not very well-versed in this type of stuff but I want to ask you an honest question: Is creating an open-source alternative to a closed-source software considered theft?
> Is creating an open-source alternative to a closed-source software considered theft?
No, never, as long as the open-source alternative doesn't actually copy any copyrightable material from the original (such as images or other data). And I don't see any signs of that here.
On the contrary, creating an open-source alternative to closed-source software is considered awesome.
In terms of design, yes. He didn't just make something that performs the same function. He took Dustin's ideas and visual design so directly that it might even legally count as copyright infringement. Since dcurtis's work is not licensed for this use, making a copy might not be legal. And since he wanted to keep it closed for a while, lifting all his hard work into your own project is not cool.
dcurtis is a professional designer. The amount of work that went into the design of the app was probably huge. If he's making his living as a designer, ripping off his design against his wishes could actually damage his business.
That's a faulty conclusion. Being a professional designer has no bearing on how much time you spend designing something.
In fact, you could assume the opposite: that, because he is a professional designer, it took him less time to design the app than it would've taken a "layman". (I'm not forgetting about the perfectionism of many designers, mind you)
It has incredible bearing. Let's presume it took him 1 hour to design the site. (It surely took dozens or hundreds, including modifications and improvements, but play along.) That 1 hour isn't just 1 hour. It's 1 hour, plus the 5 or 10 or 15 years he has spent living and breathing design, refining his abilities and sharpening his understanding of the craft. He can do a singular design faster than a "layman" because he has spent a significantly greater amount of time on Design in general.
Umm, yeah. It still took one hour of his time, regardless of how much experience he has. If someone rips of this idea, and he loses out, he has lost one hour of his time; not ten years.
I'm really not condoning the infringement here or trying to act as Captain Hindsight. But having shown something brilliant but closed to a community of interested and talented people, did you not partially expect this?
Sure, Dustin doesn't have the the trademarks for svbtle registered (yet), but completely ripping off someone else's work or defending the action is neither honorable nor moral.
You can't go around putting the Coke label on different fizzy beverages.
Svbtle is obviously popular for its brand. You are stealing its brand and using it for unintended purposes. The only value in what you've created is that it looks like Dustin's work.
Ripping that off wholesale diminishes the value of something Dustin work(ed/s) very hard to create and curate. Thousands of decisions went into that design. The design is a mark of quality.
