18 ms·
My Heroic and Lazy Stand Against IFTTT
- williamscales 11y agoSomething is wrong with your cert
- eridius 11y agoLooks valid to me.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- idlewords 11y agoSome other people are saying they've seen Chrome complain, but I can't reproduce it. Please send email (support@pinboard.in) if you can figure out what's up.
- yuhong 11y agoIncorrect certificate chain. When you moved to SHA2 certs, you failed to change the intermediates to the "Gandi Standard SSL CA 2" ones.
- pbarnes_1 11y ago1 s:/C=FR/ST=Paris/L=Paris/O=Gandi/CN=Gandi Standard SSL CA 2 i:/C=US/ST=New Jersey/L=Jersey City/O=The USERTRUST Network/CN=USERTrust RSA Certification Authority Nope...?
- yuhong 11y agoYes, this is the correct intermediate.
- pbarnes_1 11y agoAh, his blog.pinboard.in and pinboard.in configs are different. @idlewords: http://charlieharvey.org.uk/page/gandi_sha2_intermediate_cert_ssl_tls http://charlieharvey.org.uk/page/gandi_sha2_intermediate_cer... Are you putting the chain certs in the SSLCertificateChainFile file, and not concating them to the SSLCertificateFile?
- darkhorn 11y agohttps://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=blog.pinboard.in https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=blog.pinboard... Google Chrome on Android ERR_CERT_AUTHORITY_INVALID You are using obsolute chiper.
- riking 11y agoThe actual problem resulting in untrusted cert is the "extra download" certificates.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- skuhn 11y agoCert chain is incorrect basically and the browser is fetching intermediate certs to try to make it work. Most of the issues Qualys points out on blog.pinboard.in are not present on pinboard.in itself, so I presume there's a difference in config there that would be a good place to start. They're also running on different versions of Debian (squeeze v. wheezy, which ship different OpenSSLs) which accounts for some of the variance. Also, as Qualys notes, disable RC4 ciphers on pinboard.in and you're in pretty good shape.
- thedufer 11y agoIt only happens on Android Chrome. SSLLabs reports a bunch of stuff, but it seems like the issue matches http://stackoverflow.com/questions/27892873/ssl-cert-err-cert-authority-invalid-on-mobile-chrome-only http://stackoverflow.com/questions/27892873/ssl-cert-err-cer.... Hopefully a quick fix.
- draw_down 11y agoWell, that's stupid of them.
- rememberlenny 11y agoI went through the IFTTT integration process a while back. I created a platform for indexing street art and made a service that can return nearby street art, when given a lat/lon point. When I first got contacted about the IFTTT channel, I was excited. After realizing how much of my application endpoint I was going to need to rewrite, it became a task I kept putting on the back burner. In my mind, the process of integration is being done well. It just requires a lot of lift for individuals who are the only developer on a project that already feels like it has a never ending list of tasks.
- msbarnett 11y ago> 11. Compatibility. Each Licensee Channel must maintain 100% compatibility with the Developer Tool and the Service including changes provided to you by IFTTT, which shall be implemented in each Channel promptly thereafter. > 17.This Agreement is personal to Licensee and may not be assigned or transferred for any reason [...]. IFTTT expressly reserves the right to assign this Agreement and to delegate any of its obligations hereunder. Any developer signing this agreement is nuts.
- hyperhopper 11y agoI'm surprised that a majority must have signed already, for them to actually make the switch. Hopefully this costs them a lot of buisiness and they have to revert.
- Macha 11y agoI imagine they're more than happy to maintain their Twitter recipe themselves and it's probably only the smaller services they're punting the work to
- fenomas 11y agoThe author noted in the comments that nobody signs it, it's a passive "By using our developer site you agree.." agreement.
- jonny_eh 11y agoAre those even enforceable?
- kybernetyk 11y agoDo you have the funds to defend yourself in such a lawsuit?
- msbarnett 11y agoGenerally, yes.
- gergles 11y agoThank you for the recommendations for replacement services. I emailed you about this - and I'm glad you publicly responded, because I smelled something weird in the way the IFTTT email was worded. Very disappointed to hear it was what appears to be pretty shady on their part.
- chris_wot 11y agoIsn't this similar to the shit Twitter pulled on developers? It's funny - nowadays people don't go along with stupidity like this. They just call the bluff of the business doing the strong arming and drop their support for their platform. Seriously, if IFTTT want to force people do craploads of work for no real payoff, best of luck to them. I do hope most folks won't play along though. And those license terms? Yeah, best of luck with that. I wouldn't use them either!
- seanalltogether 11y agoCan someone elaborate more on the "Working for Free" section? I'm not well versed in IFTTT, but shouldn't I as the owner of a website that wants to offer a recipe be responsible for the details that recipe? This is all very unclear without specific examples.
- djrogers 11y agoThis isn't about offering recipes, this is about IFTTT requiring sites to write support for a new API (notice, it's not write to a new API, they have to build this new PI in to their site) so others can write IFTTT recipes.
- dljsjr 11y agoI believe, and I could be wrong here, that previously IFTTT simply consumed public APIs to cobble things together. They are now asking services that want to be IFTTT-able to expose an API that IFTTT defines. IFTTT will still be hitting endpoints on the developer's product's site, but the endpoints are defined by IFTTT and not public.
- msbarnett 11y agoThe site doesn't provide recipes, it provides endpoints (API calls) that users can write recipes to use. How it worked until now: 1) IFTTT wrote glue code to interface with a site's published API, and IFTTT could then write recipes to use the site. IFTTT thus stitched together other sites published APIs as a service. How IFTTT has decided it will work from now on: 1) IFTTT comes to you and orders you to write private endpoint(s) that do X, Y, and Z. They reserve the right to ask for additional endpoints, different call results, or anything else they dream up down the road. You sign a legal agreement promising to ask "how high?" any time they say "jump". You will not be compensated for this privilege.
- dave2000 11y agoWouldn't you be performing this work because you believe it will facilitate the transfer of traffic to your site? Aren't you comitting to make changes as and when ifttt change their API so that you can continue to receive their calls? Sites/services can just walk away if they don't want the traffic. No one's obliged to pay or do anything they don't want to.
- JoshTriplett 11y agoI hadn't seen Botize before. In structure and capabilities, it looks a lot more promising to me than either IFTTT or Zapier (for instance, it supports maintaining lists and adding/selecting data from them), except that half the site seems to be localized to Spanish and doesn't seem to have an option anywhere to change the site language.
- idlewords 11y agoI think it's just some fellow in Spain who's about to have a really busy week.
- handelaar 11y agoIf memory serves that's pretty much how pinboard.in got launched into the air a few years back, so it'd certainly be poetic. Nice of you to pass it on :)
- fprotthetarball 11y agoTried migrating my IFTTT recipes to Zapier and hit a roadblock on the very first one -- bookmarking posts I have saved in Reddit. Botize apparently has no Reddit integration. There's a definite opportunity here. I'd even pay more money for Pinboard (on top of the archival fee) for more Pinboard-specific integrations for things like this. It is too convenient.
- ukyrgf 11y agoThe RSS feed for saved posts is https://www.reddit.com/user/{ https://www.reddit.com/user/{{ username }}/saved/.rss
- fprotthetarball 11y agoThank you! I have RSS feeds set to private by default, so I assumed this wouldn't work. However, I did discover "Private RSS feeds" in the reddit preferences. I can likely feed these into Zapier.
- klenwell 11y agoIf you've never heard of it, If-This-Then-That is a service that lets you connect websites together, so that things that happen in one place automatically trigger some regrettable action someplace else. For example, you might write an IFTTT ‘recipe’ that tweets anything you post on Facebook, because you are a monster. I'd heard of it (I may have even signed up with it at some point), but this has to be the best explanation of IFTTT I've come across.
- hkmurakami 11y agoMaciej is a fabulous writer with a deft mix of wry, self-deprecating wit and precise expressions. If you aren't familiar with his writing, you'd likely enjoy "Dabblers and Blowhards" http://www.idlewords.com/2005/04/dabblers_and_blowhards.htm http://www.idlewords.com/2005/04/dabblers_and_blowhards.htm
- eru 11y agoOr my favourite: http://idlewords.com/2007/04/the_alameda_weehawken_burrito_tunnel.htm http://idlewords.com/2007/04/the_alameda_weehawken_burrito_t...
- bsirkia 11y ago"Argentina on Two Steaks A Day" is one of my favorite essays ever: http://www.idlewords.com/2006/04/argentina_on_two_steaks_a_day.htm http://www.idlewords.com/2006/04/argentina_on_two_steaks_a_d...
- CPLX 11y agoWTF did I just read? I think it was genius but I'm not entirely sure.
- readams 11y agoYou are correct. It is genius. On the other hand...
- 11y ago
- dmerrick 11y agoDepending on when the channel was introduced, the backend implementation of a channel can vary wildly. Some were written in Node, others in Ruby, some where written internally, others were written by the service owners. When IFTTT released the developer platform, they were solving two needs: 1) creating a consistent channel infrastructure, and 2) providing a tool for developers to write channels so they don't have to. It seems like they are shutting down some of their legacy services, which is probably a good plan for a company with no revenue stream. Not a good plan, however, to make it look like it is the developers' fault.
- Etheryte 11y agoShutting down legacy APIs may be a good idea, however the way they want to make the new API happen is completely bonkers.
- 9935c101ab17a66 11y agoAnd to also compel them to sign an onerous developer agreement after you tell them they have to do work they previously didn't have to.
- fiatjaf 11y agoCouldn't IFTTT just use the public APIs already offered by the sites?
- frakkingcylons 11y agoThat's what they're doing at the moment. I'm guessing IFTTT believe that they have become important enough to get the sites to integrate with IFTTT.
- esperluette 11y agoI agree that this is dumb of IFTTT. But I am all in favor of a 'recipe' that consists of "startup does dumb stuff=>Maciej writes a hilarious takedown=>I LOL so hard people ask me what's going on from two rooms away". Can someone implement the API for that, please?
- ajarmst 11y agoWe really do need some standard unicode glyphs for 'mic drop' and 'awed silence'.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- voltagex_ 11y agoThanks Maciej.
- erichocean 11y agoIt would be easier to support IFTTT on this if the proposed APIs to be implemented were public. But making the APIs private and then being a dick about it with all the legal threats isn't something that I can reasonably support. I doubt I'm alone in thinking this way.
- lindentibbets 11y agoWe fully intend to make the APIs public, but are working with existing partners to implement. We are trying to be flexible and understanding, also are not throwing legal threats :)
- Spidler 11y ago"We apply a scorched maybe tactic.". First we strong arm current implementations, forcing them into a Private API that we 'intend' to make public. Sort of how we intend to go to the gym, intend to drink less and intend to think about how our actions affect others in order to be better people this year. Wait. Why would we believe this statement? Why would the people who willingly implement your private API care about it going public? This "intend" is as much worth as the intent to build a comprehensive test suite and intent to document the code later.
- athenot 11y agoSo you "intent" to eventually make the APIs public but hold your partners to the gun and shut them off if they don't meet all your demands (ToS, new API dev). What I'm hearing is you want partners to trust your intents but you don't trust any of theirs—as evidenced by the terms of service that is required and binding. The "not throwing legal threats" part comes off very hollow in that context. If you did trust your partners, you'd make a new API alongside the current setup, and it would be so awesome that people would switch on their own. But as others already pointed out, it seems the value in the new API is self-serving and is inexistent for your partners. I'm all for collaboration but I suspect you are trying to build a moat around your business and make a ubiquitous platform. I sincerely hope this backfires.
- gorillaffe 11y ago
- voltagex_ 11y agoI'd spend money on a Yahoo Pipes + IFTTT solution with some kind of guarantee they're not going to vanish overnight. You know, like a Pinboard.in style company. I think we need to clone Maciej.
- AnkhMorporkian 11y agoWhat we need is a common interchange protocol, not a specific service.
- andrewfong 11y agoLike RSS, iCal, IMAP, and so forth? Or are you thinking of something else?
- voltagex_ 11y agoI don't think you're going to get it. It's the same issue with instant messaging now. There's a business incentive not to allow interoperability. Common interchange of what, though? IFTTT's utility came through connecting disparate services - Reddit to Pinboard, Twitter to Facebook and so on.
- toomuchtodo 11y ago> Common interchange of what, though? Common interchange of schemeless data. Take data from here, put there. Pushing JSON blobs around, essentially.
- voltagex_ 11y agoIsn't that what HTTP POST/PUT is for? GET for pull?
- toomuchtodo 11y agoHTTP POST/PUT/GET are underlying primitives for these automation systems, which are essentially polished messaging buses.
- juancampa 11y agoRidiculous!
- nickspacek 11y agoI have to admit I use IFTTT to take an RSS feed from our kid's elementary school and post the entries to a Facebook Fan Page. The idea being to avoid having to teach my wife to use an RSS reader, now she (and another hundred or so people) get the school news without leaving Facebook. I feel conflicted in some ways but pragmatism wins. Anyone know a non-IFTTT way to set this up?
- guelo 11y agoIf you're a self respecting programmer you should write the 10 line script your self.
- fabulist 11y agoIf you are a self-respecting programmer, you should ask yourself if someone has done a better job writing the same tool than you intend to do.
- guelo 11y agoYou have been handed down free libraries for RSS and Facebook containing thousands of lines of high quality code. If you can't put the few lines of glue code together and are willing to sacrifice your privacy and random legal restrictions to yet another service just for this little convenience, then... well if you don't respect yourself I'm not going to respect you either.
- fabulist 11y agoYou are using very strong words to describe a very weak signal, and it comes out sounding like noise. Self-respecting programmers make lots of good and bad decisions, and trying to exclude someone from that category because they went down a particular path is divisive and unproductive. If you had said, "I don't see why one would opt to use a service rather than write a script for this very simple task," you might've gotten an interesting answer pointing out something you missed. No self respecting programmer would throw away the chance to learn a valuable lesson to grandstand. (Edit: Though I've totally made that mistake before.)
- gexla 11y agoIsn't much of the legal stuff just a way to cover their tails? For example, the bit about owning content. Do they really want your content? Is content on the internet worth anything these days? If your content is worth something, it's likely the Google ranking which gives it value rather than the content itself. I imagine that's just an attempt to keep people from suing over reproducing content to go over the pipes. PEDRAGOSA V. GOOGLE SPAIN, S.L. - Google got sued for reproducing content in various ways in search results. The case went in Google's favor but the legal costs for this sort of thing is probably a killer for services which don't have that GOOG ticker symbol. The "no competition" bit seems like it's meant to keep people from using IFTTT developer tools as part of their own competing service. Why bother reading the legal stuff? It likely won't ever come up to affect you. There is some risk, but the opportunity cost of taking the time to go through it is probably greater. I imagine most of the world population doesn't have the comprehension ability to understand what they are reading anyways. You might as well just stop using the internet rather than trying to make sense of the legal stuff.
- timv 11y ago> Isn't much of the legal stuff just a way to cover their tails? Sure, but most of it puts your tail on the line instead. They've decided that they somehow have enough power to make you do their job, and make sure you do it in a way that protects their legal interests over yours. You'd be a fool to agree to it. > Do they really want your content? Yes. Their lawyer told them that it was a good idea to make sure their license agreement gave them (and I quote) all right, title, and interest (section 3) to any materials displayed or performed on the Service (definition of "Content" in section 1). They thought it was a good idea to follow said lawyers advice, because it was easier for them if they could just do whatever they wanted with your content. So, yes, they want it. That's probably not because they want to run off with it, but because it's easier (for them) that way and they don't care about you. It's much easier for a business to evolve and grow when they know that they can just do whatever they feel like and don't have to stick within the narrow terms of an existing agreement. Open "give me all your stuff" agreements are much simpler to use. > Why bother reading the legal stuff? Because they could be bothered writing it, so they obviously think it's important. And it gives them all the rights that they could possibly want for nothing in return. If it's not important, then it didn't need to exist in the first place. If it needs to exist, then it's worth reading. We're not talking about a simple end-user here, this is Maciej's company and full time job, and IFTTT seems to want to use this license for B2B integrations. Crazy!
- astrostl 11y agoI love to support this guy. As great as the product is, his communication is even better. https://blog.pinboard.in/2014/11/new_pricing_policy/ https://blog.pinboard.in/2014/11/new_pricing_policy/ - "Should I be worried? -> Only in the broadest, existential sense."
- lindentibbets 11y agoI am the CEO over at IFTTT. I apologize for any misunderstanding our communications today have caused. I built the Pinboard Channel on IFTTT and have maintained it for years. I am also a paying customer of Pinboard! I’ve built for hundreds of platforms and any changes to those platforms by default suck. At IFTTT, we've been on the receiving end of platform changes too many times to count. I want to make sure we do it better. Pinboard is a beloved service. Every service is, on IFTTT or not. We care about the people who use them and build them. The changes we are asking for are indeed more work, but we know they will lead to a better Pinboard Channel on IFTTT in the long term. I'd love to see Pinboard stay on IFTTT and am willing to give them the time they need and even come over to help myself!
- laydros 11y agoThe things you are saying here sound like your attitude is in the right place, but did you actually read the TOS your legal team sent out?
- lindentibbets 11y agoYes I did. Agree that we could make some improvements
- URSpider94 11y agoAs the CEO, if you think you could have made some improvements, then I wonder how this contract got sent out to valued partners? Can you share with us your plan for fixing this state of affairs going forward?
- reitanqild 11y agoMaking those improvements before sending it out would have been smart I think. Some of us care a great deal about license agreements for different reasons.
- ReadingInBed 11y agoHaving spent countless hours working with third party apis that are poorly documented and business critical I can understand how unexpected changes can be frustrating. But asking people to do things your way with no incentive is even more frustrating for everyone. It comes off as you not respecting their time or the product and apis they have already built.
- smelendez 11y ago> 4. Confidentiality You agree not to disclose (or allow access to) the Developer Tool (or any information derived therefrom) to any third party and will limit access to the Developer Tool (and any derived information) to your employees who are developing your IFTTT channel. In support of this obligation, you will apply at least the same security that you use to protect your own most confidential information. Did anyone seriously think this through? What about companies that have among their "most confidential information" data, like passwords, crypto keys, confidential memos, etc., that they'd never store on an Internet-connected machine?
- makenova 11y agoI applied to IFTTT about a year ago (didn't get the job), part of the interview process was to develop a channel on their developer platform. I don't consider my self a fast developer but it wasn't difficult and it took me about a weekend of casual work. Maciej is well within his rights to flip IFTTT the bird, but I just wanted to provide some context about how much work is involved.
- idlewords 11y agoI agree that implementing a simple API endpoint is easy. Running that endpoint is not easy. Once it's live, you're dealing with an entangled system of API, user, network, database, server, full moon, voodoo curse, and God knows what else. It's a giant flaming tumbleweed of pain. Clearly IFTTT agrees, and that's why they're trying to make us do it for them.
- makenova 11y agoYou're absolutely right. I will not try to compare what I did to pinboard. I still have the channel running on a DigitalOcean box and even though the service is simple and stable, I still have to fiddle with it once in a while. I only keep it running because it's valuable... to me.
- jwise0 11y agoHN meta: I'm sort of disappointed that this has been getting downvoted. Obviously, what Linden is saying in this case is probably not helping his business case. It's clear to me that he either does not understand why Maciej doesn't want to implement a private API, or does not wish to understand it. On the other hand, neither of those things are grounds for a downvote, I think. A downvote says "this content shouldn't be on HN" -- that there's something about a comment that detracts from how the community operates. Linden has been completely respectful in what he says and how he says it. Maybe that's not the case in what he's asking his users to do, but we may as well let him ask.
- disposeofnick9 11y agoIt's the signals destroying trust that create the animosity, and will tend to make it harder to have decent, respectful, working relationships with integration partners. It reads as lopsided and occurring unilaterally, without any degree of trust or respect for said partners.
- icebraining 11y agoA downvote says "this content shouldn't be on HN" Ehh, I'm not sure that's generally accepted. A few years back pg himself did say downvotes could be used for showing simple disagreement, and many people seem to agree even today.
- idlewords 11y agopg was also fond of using hellbanning to express disagreement.
- sam_goody 11y agoIf people use downvotes to show disagreement, than HN is sunk. No-one likes downvotes, and it will create a community where people only post those comments that they think everyone will agree with. Instead, downvotes should only be sed to highlight comments that should never have been made.
- 11y ago
- disposeofnick9 11y agoA startup becomes uncool when it starts driving code churn as a value reducer ostensibly as "new value," but instead alienates their vendors and customers alike. IFTTT reminds me of the audicity of Hillary Clinton assuming she's already the next president while avoiding releasing those damaging Goldman Sachs transcripts (where her boilerplate contracts require a stenographer, and an attendee describes the tone of one speeches as that of her acting like a managing director cheerleading the troops). Or maybe the Drumpf's endless list of bankrupt companies and bringing meat from the grocery store to prove nothing. Oops. Edit: Anyhow, I'll move my weather warning texts over to a service that doesn't molest its developer partners without their consent. Thanks IFTTT, here's your mixtapes back.
- snowwrestler 11y ago> The developer terms of service don't seem to be available by a public URL, so I will quote the bits that stung me. I invite IFTTT lawyers to send me a takedown notice, because that will be the funniest part of this fracas so far. Fun fact: legal language is not protected by copyright and can be copied, modified, republished, or reused.
- SEMW 11y ago> Fun fact: legal language is not protected by copyright With respect: are you a lawyer? I'm not, but all the sources I can find written by actual lawyers put this claim somewhere between 'wildly oversimplified' and 'false', depending on jurisdiction and the kind of legal language (contracts vs legislation, etc.). Eg for US law, [0] quotes Nimmer on Copyrights § 2.18[E] as stating that ‘There appear to be no valid grounds why legal forms such as contracts, insurance policies, pleadings and other legal documents should not be protected under the law of copyright.’ [0] http://www.adamsdrafting.com/downloads/Copyright-NYLJ-8.23.06.pdf http://www.adamsdrafting.com/downloads/Copyright-NYLJ-8.23.0...
- snowwrestler 11y agoI am not, but I have been previously advised on this topic by lawyers who specialize in IP. Of course, your mileage may vary and my comments on the Internet should not be construed as legal advice for your specific situation. Edit to add: The advice I received was in the context of contracts, privacy policies, and terms of service. I don't know about, and didn't mean to include, legal language in legislation or court filings. Important clarification--thanks.
- Jgrubb 11y ago> I am all for glue services, big and small. But it's better for the web that they connect to stable, documented, public APIs, rather than custom private ones. This is the clincher for me. I spent about 15 minutes looking around IFTTT before figuring out that there were no developer docs because this is a service for enterprise customers, not for us.
- OliverJones 11y agoHow many times, dear colleagues, do we have to be reminded of this truth? If you don't pay for the product, you are the product.
- icebraining 11y agoHow much did you pay to post your message?
- ksk 11y agoIt seems like more and more companies' business model simply involves setting up a "toll booth" on the internet.
- vijayr 11y agoBig companies might get away with toll booths - how about small ones like IFTTT? There are alternatives, these services are not absolutely necessary (like payment processing or hosting) etc etc. It is in their own interest not to screw people over. There will always be someone else to take their place.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- ksenzee 11y agoIFTTT has acted throughout as if they were doing Maciej a favor by letting him implement their API, which makes no sense at all. But! According to zacwest[1], the access they're offering him to their "platform" costs $3000 if you walk in off the street. So not only are they trying to get people to do IFTTT's work for them, they're trying to get people to pay for the privilege of doing IFTTT's work for them. I'm, er, impressed. [1] https://twitter.com/zacwest/status/714861944465809408 https://twitter.com/zacwest/status/714861944465809408
- applecore 11y agoIs there an open API standard for exposing a web service to IFTTT, Zapier, or other app connectors?
- meesterdude 11y agoI was going to integrate my app with IFTTT, but after reading this post, as well as the responses from the CEO in this thread, there is no way I will ever in a million years integrate with IFTTT. I think its an interesting train-wreck to take note of. And it is clearly a reflection of the CEO, who has consistently misunderstood or ignored the true complaints people have about this new direction, while half-apologizing for terms and blaming "communication" on terms that place absurd expectations on companies that IFTTT chose to integrate with, and now wants to reverse the roles of. Meanwhile, maciej is doing everything right. Communicating with his users about what is actually going on (instead of lying to them as IFTTT has done), and doing so in a thoughtful and playful piece of writing. Time will tell how this plays out. But I think if IFTTT's moral compass is willing to let this go public, if they think this is/was an actual good idea, their days are numbered. The PR around this change alone was horribly executed, in addition to the change itself being a big middle finger. Neither speaks to an understanding of their users or sites they depend on to integrate with. IFTTT would be NOTHING without any other services to integrate with, and they chose to throw them under the bus. You had a chance, IFTTT. But you revealed your colors, and now you don't.
- lindentibbets 11y agoReally sorry to hear it, but appreciate the feedback. We are working to address concerns across the board regarding ToS and communication. I'd be more than happy to hop on a call to address if you want shoot me an email, my first name at ifttt.com
- jdcarter 11y agoI want to make a correction about the patent bit. Maciej says: > And they assert the right to patent any clever ideas I have while doing that free work for them, even though I hate software patents: The relevant bit of the IFTTT TOS: > 12. Patent License. Licensee hereby grants IFTTT a nonexclusive, sublicensable, perpetual, fully-paid, worldwide license to fully exercise and exploit all patent rights with respect to improvements or extensions created by or for Licensee to the API They're not trying to patent your work, they're saying that you grant them a license to any patents you might get that relate to your IFTTT integration. In other words, a developer cannot create an integration for IFTTT, patent something in there, then turn around and sue IFTTT for patent infringement. This is pretty standard language in software licenses/contracts/terms of service.