Both 'View the code' and 'Download' are bigger. People could ostensibly want to view the code before seeing it but I can't imagine many would want to download without demoing first.
1. Perhaps try shortening the copy. The large buttons could just read:
Code (Github) | Demo
Either increase the text size or also shorten the copy on the smaller buttons to fix the resulting size offset:
Download (62kb) | BitBucket | Issues
2. Your "Follow @getpinry" is overlapping the "Tweet" button.
3. I find the grey borders superfluous and a bit heavy-handed. I think you could just remove them, replace them with shadows, or lighten them and tint them a bit blue so that they don't stand out so much.
Looks great, btw. Have been looking for a platform on which to share inspiration with co-workers inside corporate intranet.
The older BSD version -- https://github.com/overshard/pinry/tree/26f9c76988b8cc5b0ee5... -- looks like something I might play around with though.
Thanks for identifying the fork point as well.
It is a license that touts "ultimate freedom" but the reality is that it removes your freedom to make changes that you would like to keep private.
The basic idea is to avoid someone taking something like a web server, heavily build on it, and set up a big service running it -- but not providing the modifications back to the users of the service (and eg: leaving them "out in the cold" if the service shuts down). Or in this case -- if you fork pinry, that's fine -- but your users are entitled to the source and your modifications (note your users not everyone).
I think it's a perfectly valid licence, and appropriate for stuff like this, where you could take pinry, set it up as a service, slap some ads on it, and make money off of the value created by pinry's authors. Nothing wrong with that. But if you find and fix bugs, those fixes have to be contributed back to at least your users (which then again are free to redistribute them under the AGPL, making it likely that they find their way back to the original project).
A regular GPL with a constraint on number-of-users seems fine for protecting the openness of a product intended for personal (non-hosting-provider) use, and pinry can license a commercial version for hosting providers.
Running the actual Pinterest, with millions of users, would be pretty hard. (At least for those with no prior experience of working at scale.)
My point was that they did the work to associate "pin" with this concept in the public mind. Of course they don't own the word. That's just stupid. When people do these homages or clones, they are gaining traction and influence by riding on the work they did. Enforcement? Who cares... it's just unoriginal, cheap and lazy to trade on the name.
Pinterest can get around this by claiming that it was the user who pinned the photo, not them, and they also allow websites to opt-out from pinning (and some websites like National Geographic actually do that). But if you self-host, you are responsible for what is posted...
I am asking because, if I could legally run a website where I would publish smaller version of any photo I find on the Internet, then well, there's a great monetization potential there. But I don't think it would be so easy.
You could honor a 'content="nopin"'. It's be interesting if that became a standard (similar to nofollow or robots.txt).
If someone has a copyright complaint with a public Pinry it will need to be directed at that individual because we really have no control over it and even if we did honor something like a nopin tag it's open source, it'll just get removed if someone wants to post copyrighted material.
And if not, what do you think would be a typical usecase, i.e. who would want to run Pinry-powered website?
But this is the same question you should have for a Blog I'd think, if you host copyrighted content on a blog then you'll have the same issues if it's a public blog.
If you are permitted to download, you are permitted to move the dowoaded file around for yourself.
Doesn't Google/Bing do this with their image search?
In practice, I suspect most copyright holders will send a DMCA takedown anyway, either to you or to the company hosting the site, if you're on a VPS or PaaS service.