Comment by peterkelly | Hacker News Reader

Comment by peterkelly | Hacker News Reader

I've just forked it on Github, as have 25 others (as I write this).

As with file formats, the notion that network protocols & APIs should ever be granted any type of protection and that no-one other than the creators should be able to write software that conforms to these protocols is ridiculous.

Snapchat, in my view, have every right to restrict who uses their service and in what manner - via standard mechanisms like API keys and login credentials. But preventing third-party implementations of protocols or APIs is so 90s. Oracle had a bit of trouble with this recently.

One problem I'm personally trying to remedy is the proliferation of various APIs and protocols for accessing various online storage services (Dropbox, Google Drive, Box etc) by developing an SDK that supports all of them. We need more of this kind of these kinds of projects, not less.

Micah Schaffer, if you're reading this, you're welcome to send me a takedown request and discuss the issue with me. My email address is in my profile.

EDIT: It's at 62 now. I wouldn't be surprised if even Barbra Streisand has forked it.

I've actually amended my fork now to remove the API keys, adding the following instructions:

  /* Instructions for usage:
     1. Replace YOUR_SECRET_KEY and YOUR_STATIC_TOKEN in the code below with
        the values you have to access the service.
     2. Fill in SERVICE_URL with the appropriate endpoint. */

Not that it's going to stop anyone from going to any of the other forks or retrieving the previous revision of the file, but at least I've now only got up what I believe to be genuinely acceptable.

Forked from you. 162+.

Forked - at least startups should know how to behave. Truly shameful

https://twitter.com/ansimionescu/status/359361709904891904

Edit: Why not use some of these https://www.google.com/search?q=pro+bono+lawyer+advice

It always amazes me how often this lesson is taught and how often people fail to learn from it ;)

What's annoying is that SnapChat got lucky, real lucky, and now they're acting as if they have a secret sauce worth protecting. Jokers.

"But preventing third-party implementations of protocols or APIs is so 90s."

I think the impending 3Taps (padmapper.com) v/s Craigslist case[1] will shed more light on this. padmapper were using Craigslist data that is 'freely available' and Craigslist didn't like it.

[1] http://www.dmlp.org/threats/craigslist-v-3taps

I don't think that's relevant at all. A "protocol or API" as the GP mentions exists independently of the entity which created it. PadMapper, on the other hand, is actively accessing Craigslist against their service's TOS.

IANAL, but it seems to me like browsers are violating their terms of use, too:

Any access to or use of craigslist to design, develop, test, update, operate, modify, maintain, support, market, advertise, distribute or otherwise make available any program, application or service (including, without limitation, any device, technology, product, computer program, mobile device application, website, or mechanical or personal service) that enables or provides access to, use of, operation of or interoperation with craigslist (including, without limitation, to access content, post content, cross-post content, re-post content, respond or reply to content, verify content, transmit content, create accounts, verify accounts, use accounts, circumvent and/or automate technological security measures or restrictions, or flag content) is prohibited.

I don't believe they can (or perhaps "should be allowed to") stop people from accessing their site via http (which is a protocol or api). Either way, it feels the same to me; I think it's relevant.

Right, I'm not saying whether Craigslist is justified here; just that the situations are different.

THIS is why one "asks HN". Forked.

forked. 80+

Reply on news.ycombinator.com