Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Take down my reverse-engineered Snapchat lib because they asked?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 137 posts

Re: Ask HN: Take down my reverse-engineered Snapchat lib because they asked?

#51

Post by peterkelly »

One important distinction that I see missed here is that of an API vs. a service.

Snapchat provide a service, which I mentioned in another comment here that they have every right to enforce terms of service on, and restrict or allow usage as they see fit.

Snapchat also provide an API (which, in this scenario can also be considered a network protocol). This API can be used to access this service.

Now that I've had a look at the code, I've noticed that it includes the API keys which grant programs using this library the appropriate access permissions for the service. I think this is wrong, and that these keys should not be included in an open source library. The rest of the code however, is fine, as it simply implements a protocol.

If I were to develop something like this, I would leave out the API keys and have the user of the library fill them in. In principle, and as someone else has mentioned here, it would be possible to develop and operate your own service which uses this protocol/API. And I see nothing wrong with that.

Well, except of course that the whole notion of an app which presents information for a set period of time after which the user can no longer view it is inherently flawed, since eventually someone's going to figure out how to not erase/hide the information.

Re: Ask HN: Take down my reverse-engineered Snapchat lib because they asked?

#52

Post by DannyBee »

Can't give you legal advice, since you aren't my client and i can't ethically represent you.

In general, though, not taking it down will be a tough path for you.

If you really want to go down that path, get a lawyer (i'm happy to make recommendations for you), say nothing else here (or anywhere) about your motivations/goals/whatever, and go that way.

If you don't want to spend the time or the money, take it down .

Re: Ask HN: Take down my reverse-engineered Snapchat lib because they asked?

#53

Post by peterkelly »

ialex wrote: post #49
peterkelly wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As was ruled in the recent Oracle vs. Google case, APIs are not subject to copyright protection: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/05/no-copyrights-apis-jud...

This time is a little bit different since google copy the API but they used their own devices to run the API, in this case he copied the API but still uses snapchat service so he must build their own snapchat server to avoid copyright protection i think.

Yes, I agree, and in fact after looking at the code I realised he's included API keys which I think is wrong. As I received your response I was just finishing up another comment on this (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6084802).

Re: Ask HN: Take down my reverse-engineered Snapchat lib because they asked?

#54

Post by ultimoo »

peterkelly wrote: post #28

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 lik…

"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

Re: Ask HN: Take down my reverse-engineered Snapchat lib because they asked?

#55

Post by ams6110 »

K0nserv wrote: post #50
Splendor wrote: post #4

Whatever you decide to do, don't make posts like this that could potentially be used against you.

Just how can this post be used against him?

Anything you say can be used against you by a creative lawyer. Hence Miranda for criminal suspects. In civil cases you don't get that warning, but it's generally best to keep your mouth shut except when talking to your own attorney.

Re: Ask HN: Take down my reverse-engineered Snapchat lib because they asked?

#56

Post by PeterisP »

late2part wrote: post #8

A lot of times when you use a product, you're required to agree to an EULA wherein you promise/commit to not reverse engineer a product or its protocols. If you did use snapchat as a registered user, this issue could affect you negatively. Another alternative is to mail them back and ask them for clarification. Why do they consider it an infringement? The law clearly states the following: (2) No person shall manufact…

It depends on your location - in sane jurisdictions, EULAs aren't worth the paper they're not written on. But it looks like that USA is not one of them.

At least for me any EULAs that aren't signed before purchase (i.e., all shrinkwrap or clickthrough "agreements") aren't binding unless I choose to - B2B sales with explicit signed contracts would be binding; or if I want to do something that by law requires permission (i.e., redistribution instead of just using the software) then I might accept an 'EULA' such as GPL.

Re: Ask HN: Take down my reverse-engineered Snapchat lib because they asked?

#57

Post by jbigelow76 »

venomsnake wrote: post #17

I hate to play devil's advocate here (especially since I already have a post here) but I had a thought. For Snapchat some of the biggest selling points are the self destruct abilities of the media sent. So an unauthorized client puts a stake trough the heart of that claim (and the company). I see why they may be worried, but I think that they should have communicated their concerns more clearly and pleading, and not…

So why create the app using an API that makes it so easy to interface with via HTTP? I guess it's just a case of "when all you have is a hammer..." thinking. If the differentiating point of your app is the self destruct feature then a more closed communication channel should be utilized. The snapchat developers have nobody to blame but themselves.

Re: Ask HN: Take down my reverse-engineered Snapchat lib because they asked?

#58

Post by bandy »

guelo wrote: post #39
untog wrote: post #5

Ignore 99% of the responses in this thread, particularly any that say "I think...", "It seems fair...", and so on. You're in a legal situation here, if you are worried, contact a lawyer.

Bunk. He spent 2 days on a hobby project with no hopes of ever making any money off of it. It makes no sense to spend time and money consulting a lawyer over this.

They haven't spent money on a lawyer yet, so why should he?

Re: Ask HN: Take down my reverse-engineered Snapchat lib because they asked?

#59

Post by jessaustin »

peterkelly wrote: post #28

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 lik…

THIS is why one "asks HN". Forked.

Re: Ask HN: Take down my reverse-engineered Snapchat lib because they asked?

#60

Post by hga »

mattmaroon wrote: post #12
simias wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he's asking for moral, not legal advice.

Asking for moral advice when you need legal advice isn't a good idea. The two are often conflicting.

If the moral advice is punt it, the legal issue is moot.
Post reply on HN