91–100 of 392 posts
While I completely understand your decision to pull it; both their decision to flex their legal arm and your decision to not stand your ground are equally disappointing.
I guess... I'm sorry? and I'll try to do better next time, I promise.
Not to be mean, but there isn't a next time. You could still stand you ground now — you haven't removed it yet, and still don't have to.
I wonder how much longer Slack’s web client is going to remain a first class product? Clearly, it was a good way to drive adoption, but seems that at this point they want ever more control.
> I wonder how much longer Slack’s web client is going to remain a first class product? It never was? The Android client takes 10 seconds to start, runs my device hot and the UI is so bad that the first time I tried to respond to a thread I couldn't figure out how to get out of the thread view. The desktop client uses 1GB of memory gobbles my CPU and takes 20 seconds to start. The "least bad client", the web client s…
One of the reasons is the lack of competition, e.g., we use Microsoft Teams instead, but its also an electron app with the same problems (and takes ages to start).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah and I also own the machine that's rendering the HTML and executing the Javascript. Nobody has any legal right to prevent me modifying my browser and changing how it interprets said javascript.
They do when you want to redistribute it with their name, which is the whole point of this discussion.
I think you can safely ignore this cease and desist. Just change the name and add a disclaimer so your users know that by using your extension they are violating their acceptable use policy. This is no different than any user writing a Tampermonkey script to modify any website they want to modify. Even further, this is no different than a user opening the Dev Tools console and modifying things there.
You won't be able to tell your lawyer "this is no different than paying you with real money" and hand over a stack of monopoly banknotes. Legal advice by analogy is unlikely to be all that useful.
I think you can safely ignore this cease and desist. Just change the name and add a disclaimer so your users know that by using your extension they are violating their acceptable use policy. This is no different than any user writing a Tampermonkey script to modify any website they want to modify. Even further, this is no different than a user opening the Dev Tools console and modifying things there.
Will you cover his legal costs for choosing this decision? Right matters less than resources if it's expensive to even be right. You can state your case here on HN without repercussion, not so when being sued (it costs to even state your case reasonably due to hazards of self-defense and it costs dearly if you lose).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They do when you want to redistribute it with their name, which is the whole point of this discussion.
The heart of their complaint was not the name. It was the fact that the extension injects code into their site.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah and I also own the machine that's rendering the HTML and executing the Javascript. Nobody has any legal right to prevent me modifying my browser and changing how it interprets said javascript.
They do when you want to redistribute it with their name, which is the whole point of this discussion.
I think you can safely ignore this cease and desist. Just change the name and add a disclaimer so your users know that by using your extension they are violating their acceptable use policy. This is no different than any user writing a Tampermonkey script to modify any website they want to modify. Even further, this is no different than a user opening the Dev Tools console and modifying things there.
this was a bunch of Tampermonkey scripts... but I don't want to ignore their cease and desist. I... just don't do it. changing the name is not an issue... however, if I have to take it down, that's moot.
Don't be surprised about legal writing. He/She as a legal person is responsible for writing in a very clear and explicit way since any misunderstanding might cost the reader or themselves in the future. It just shows their accountability. You don't want a misunderstanding cost you trouble.
I have colleagues working in the legal department. They understand you, but they still have to make sure there is no misunderstanding there.
They are serving enterprise companies, Anything goes wrong can destroy their business. It makes sense for them not to risk anything.
Companies are paying them for the security. Otherwise, there are cheaper alternatives to Slack with somewhat similar features.
Slack could allow custom clients. But I'm pretty sure all major customers will require their employees not to use un-official clients for security reasons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The heart of their complaint was not the name. It was the fact that the extension injects code into their site.
So, even more nefarious, and in violation of their terms?