8 ms·

Ripcord survived C&D letters because it didn't charge. I feel bad for OP for putting all this work in, because it's really cool - but you're going to get sued.

beardbound 4y ago
I was trying to remember the name of ripcord while reading this. Thanks. I used it for a while for both slack and discord and it wasn’t bad. However they did sell licenses. I just don’t think they required them. I just double checked and I bought a $20 license for it. Good software and definitely worth it as far as I was concerned.
chii 4y ago
it sucks that you could be sued if you are using a "public" api like this to write a client. I would like to think that as long as you do not brand yourself as slack or violate any trademarks, you should be able to write an app like this. Things like email clients would fall into this category.
- gtirloni 4y ago
  It's not public as in an utility. It has its own Terms of Service.
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    The point is it's not fair that Terms of Service can impose that restriction. Just like it wasn't fair when you were only allowed to use phones that you rented from your phone company.
    - tptacek 4y ago
      Why isn't it fair? They run the service. What gives other people the right to tell them how to run it? If you don't like their terms, there are about 100 alternative projects you can use. There are pretty clear, practical reasons you might want to control the client of a commercial network service.
      - josephcsible 4y ago
        What part of your argument wasn't true of the phone company too?
        edmundsauto 4y ago
        The phone company is the sole-source provider and you couldn't opt for another platform. The more relevant analogy is soda fountains in a restaurant - the provider chose Coke, but I want Pepsi. (My OSS founder wanted Slack, I want discord.)
        josephcsible 4y ago
        If Slack isn't the sole-source provider, then neither was the phone company, since you could also communicate by sending letters.
        edmundsauto 4y ago
        That's a different medium, although I understand your point: Slack is the sole source provider of communicating on the Slack network. Personally, I don't think this is a problem or should be fixed because of how I see the tradeoffs and side effects. Similarly, I want Apple to run their own app store and not allow sideloading because I prefer the set of tradeoffs that come with that, versus the other reality.
        wpietri 4y ago
        Phone companies are different in that they were monopolies with special legal status. Slack, on the other hand, is just one of many private companies offering roughly equivalent services. You can still argue your case, of course, but phone companies are a bad analogy here.
      - tadfisher 4y ago
        There are reasons, but it's also not smart. Organizations that pay for Slack pay for the service, not the shitty client.
  - Perseids 4y ago
    I assume your argument is that Slack has the "freedom of contract", the right to create and offer you contracts of their choosing (and you are free to accept or decline them). That right is not absolute. Workers rights limit it, sanctions limit it, cartel and competition laws limit it. There is no reason society can't agree to limit the options of keeping an API locked down in such contracts, especially for well established companies like Slack. And I think the advantages of such a law are very clear: More competition on front-ends could very likely create much better user experience (better organization of chats, better message and image editor, better notifications, show users whether messages have actually been sent). Laws are made to serve the public [1]. Being nice to companies is a means to an end, not the goal itself, and the discussion about whether API should be legally accessible to third party vendors (or devices/cars/… should be legally repairable by third party repair shops) should focus on whether we get better user experience, service, and so on, and have the question of whether companies will still want to offer backend-service like Slack under such a law as a facet. [1] At least they should be and everybody complaints when they aren't.
userbinator 4y ago
Sued for what, exactly?
- selcuka 4y ago
  Violating the API Terms of Service [1]? > [...] Further, you will not: [...] (C) access our APIs or documentation in order to replicate or compete with the Services; [1] https://slack.com/intl/en-au/terms-of-service/api https://slack.com/intl/en-au/terms-of-service/api
  - tlrobinson 4y ago
    I’m not a lawyer, but I believe Slack would have to show they were harmed in some way to successfully sue. They can certainly attempt to block 3rd party clients, though. Or threaten to / actually sue, even if they’re unlikely to be successful.
    - heartbreak 4y ago
      Unlikely to be successful? This app has near zero chance of surviving a legal challenge from Slack.
      - tumult 4y ago
        Author of Ripcord. You don’t know what you’re talking about and shouldn’t broadcast your assumptions as fact.
        heartbreak 4y ago
        Oh, you have a law license too?
        gbalduzzi 4y ago
        You keep commenting one-line sentences without any argument supporting your sentence. You may even be right, but am I supposed to blindly trust you, a random commenter from the internet?
amatecha 4y ago
I'm of the opinion that using unofficial clients for any online service should be a legal right (unless those unofficial clients cause harm to the respective service, but existing laws/regulations around that would already cover such cases). That doesn't mean the service has to specifically support the unofficial client, but they just can't intentionally block it (or forbid its use).
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- aeyes 4y ago
  I am pretty certain that I can prove any client as harmful. I have been on the receiving end of apps misbehaving plenty of times, no matter which platform (JS, iOS, Android). And these were official apps with dedicated development teams. Endless loops which flood you with API calls are a common issue, managing state is hard. Rate-limiting does not completely solve this.
  - MajorBee 4y ago
    Plus you can land in a situation where a user might associate bad experiences with an unofficial client with the actual service and thus leave with a bad impression overall.
    - ungamedplayer 4y ago
      I dont imagine that most users start with the unofficial client.
  - amatecha 4y ago
    Yeah, I was thinking as I wrote it, "official clients can probably fulfill that bullet point" hahaha
  - wildmanx 4y ago
    Doesn't your API have a problem if it can be misused that way? In other words, shouldn't your backend by default distrust the client using its API, no matter whether it's the official one or anything else? Even the official client can have bugs that bring down your backend. That's what the "zero trust" philosophy is about.
Shadonototra 4y ago
hopefully people at Slack are smart and they hire the dude but since they spit buggy electron shit for decade already, i think you are right, they'll do everything possible to shut this down and keep with their inefficient and bloated electron way
- harikb 4y ago
  Slack is no longer a small private company. They are owned by Salesforce
kevingadd 4y ago
IMO lawsuits are less of a concern than your end users getting banned, especially since slack is typically used for work. If your existing customers are loudly angry about you in public it's gonna make it hard to get new ones
- heretogetout 4y ago
  If I got banned, I don't know what I'd do first -- open a bottle of champagne or dance a little jig?
madrox 4y ago
To be fair, I'd love to see a case like this brought to court. I'm not sure there's great precedent here. I think a case could be made that Slack was not harmed through this work.
- tptacek 4y ago
  I'd like to hear a lawyer (HN has several) corroborate this "Slack must articulate harm" claim, because there is a whole branch of civil law that exists to enforce contracts in the absence of torts; as I understand it, it's called "contract law".
  - madrox 4y ago
    This is true, and not all contracts are valid. It's why I'd love to see a good case brought. I feel like every time this happens the little guy just folds instead of doubling down. But agree, would love to see some lawyers weigh in.
- userbinator 4y ago
  The closest precedent might be something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexmark_International,_Inc._v._Static_Control_Components,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexmark_International,_Inc._v..... or whatever laws make the aftermarket parts industry legal.
Kaze404 4y ago
It does, though. You need to buy a $20 license to use Slack's features.
jessefied123 4y ago
This is just wrong lol. Cancel has never received C&D orders for Ripcord, and it does charge $20 for the Slack features. Please don't spread misinformation you're not even informed correctly on, dude. If they were going to order a C&D order to Cancel, then they would've done it around the project's start (around 6ish years ago). Actually research this stuff before posting posts like these, plz.
- amedvednikov 4y ago
  From this user's top post on HN: > Over the years I've found writing on HackerNews, Reddit and other online sites has given me an outlet to get creative and engage with folks in a way that will shift discourse towards something I'm more interested in. I regularly lie and pretend I know about topics and areas I have zero experience in. I began noticing I received more upvotes and engagement
  - mh- 4y ago
    ..yikes. someone admitting to that behavior on HN should be banned. that's actively hostile to the discourse here.
  - mulmen 4y ago
    How do you see top posts?
    - amedvednikov 4y ago
      Click on the username => submissions
      - mulmen 4y ago
        Ah, ok, I would call that a “submission” but it’s an “Ask HN” so I see where you came up with “post”. Note that the submission page is sorted chronologically, not by karma. So the concept of “top” is really more like “first”. It seems you meant to point out that @Mandatum admitted to lying but the way you phrased it really made it difficult to verify the claim and came across to me like you were accusing @jessefied123. There were some very strong responses [1] to your accusation and I’m concerned that anger may be directed at the wrong person. When making these kinds of accusations you should try to be more clear. Use names and provide links. Also consider if the benefit of the accusation is worth the risk of misunderstanding. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31928612 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31928612
Ndymium 4y ago
I wouldn't be so sure. IRCCloud offers Slack connectivity (using Slack's API, not the IRC bridge that was closed long ago) and it costs money. I've used it for a couple of years now.

beardbound 4y ago

I was trying to remember the name of ripcord while reading this. Thanks. I used it for a while for both slack and discord and it wasn’t bad. However they did sell licenses. I just don’t think they required them. I just double checked and I bought a $20 license for it. Good software and definitely worth it as far as I was concerned.

chii 4y ago

it sucks that you could be sued if you are using a "public" api like this to write a client. I would like to think that as long as you do not brand yourself as slack or violate any trademarks, you should be able to write an app like this. Things like email clients would fall into this category.

gtirloni 4y ago
It's not public as in an utility. It has its own Terms of Service.
- josephcsible 4y ago
  The point is it's not fair that Terms of Service can impose that restriction. Just like it wasn't fair when you were only allowed to use phones that you rented from your phone company.
  - tptacek 4y ago
    Why isn't it fair? They run the service. What gives other people the right to tell them how to run it? If you don't like their terms, there are about 100 alternative projects you can use. There are pretty clear, practical reasons you might want to control the client of a commercial network service.
    - josephcsible 4y ago
      What part of your argument wasn't true of the phone company too?
      - edmundsauto 4y ago
        The phone company is the sole-source provider and you couldn't opt for another platform. The more relevant analogy is soda fountains in a restaurant - the provider chose Coke, but I want Pepsi. (My OSS founder wanted Slack, I want discord.)
        josephcsible 4y ago
        If Slack isn't the sole-source provider, then neither was the phone company, since you could also communicate by sending letters.
        edmundsauto 4y ago
        That's a different medium, although I understand your point: Slack is the sole source provider of communicating on the Slack network. Personally, I don't think this is a problem or should be fixed because of how I see the tradeoffs and side effects. Similarly, I want Apple to run their own app store and not allow sideloading because I prefer the set of tradeoffs that come with that, versus the other reality.
      - wpietri 4y ago
        Phone companies are different in that they were monopolies with special legal status. Slack, on the other hand, is just one of many private companies offering roughly equivalent services. You can still argue your case, of course, but phone companies are a bad analogy here.
    - tadfisher 4y ago
      There are reasons, but it's also not smart. Organizations that pay for Slack pay for the service, not the shitty client.
- Perseids 4y ago
  I assume your argument is that Slack has the "freedom of contract", the right to create and offer you contracts of their choosing (and you are free to accept or decline them). That right is not absolute. Workers rights limit it, sanctions limit it, cartel and competition laws limit it. There is no reason society can't agree to limit the options of keeping an API locked down in such contracts, especially for well established companies like Slack. And I think the advantages of such a law are very clear: More competition on front-ends could very likely create much better user experience (better organization of chats, better message and image editor, better notifications, show users whether messages have actually been sent). Laws are made to serve the public [1]. Being nice to companies is a means to an end, not the goal itself, and the discussion about whether API should be legally accessible to third party vendors (or devices/cars/… should be legally repairable by third party repair shops) should focus on whether we get better user experience, service, and so on, and have the question of whether companies will still want to offer backend-service like Slack under such a law as a facet. [1] At least they should be and everybody complaints when they aren't.

userbinator 4y ago

Sued for what, exactly?

selcuka 4y ago
Violating the API Terms of Service [1]? > [...] Further, you will not: [...] (C) access our APIs or documentation in order to replicate or compete with the Services; [1] https://slack.com/intl/en-au/terms-of-service/api https://slack.com/intl/en-au/terms-of-service/api
- tlrobinson 4y ago
  I’m not a lawyer, but I believe Slack would have to show they were harmed in some way to successfully sue. They can certainly attempt to block 3rd party clients, though. Or threaten to / actually sue, even if they’re unlikely to be successful.
  - heartbreak 4y ago
    Unlikely to be successful? This app has near zero chance of surviving a legal challenge from Slack.
    - tumult 4y ago
      Author of Ripcord. You don’t know what you’re talking about and shouldn’t broadcast your assumptions as fact.
      - heartbreak 4y ago
        Oh, you have a law license too?
      - gbalduzzi 4y ago
        You keep commenting one-line sentences without any argument supporting your sentence. You may even be right, but am I supposed to blindly trust you, a random commenter from the internet?

amatecha 4y ago

I'm of the opinion that using unofficial clients for any online service should be a legal right (unless those unofficial clients cause harm to the respective service, but existing laws/regulations around that would already cover such cases). That doesn't mean the service has to specifically support the unofficial client, but they just can't intentionally block it (or forbid its use).

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
aeyes 4y ago
I am pretty certain that I can prove any client as harmful. I have been on the receiving end of apps misbehaving plenty of times, no matter which platform (JS, iOS, Android). And these were official apps with dedicated development teams. Endless loops which flood you with API calls are a common issue, managing state is hard. Rate-limiting does not completely solve this.
- MajorBee 4y ago
  Plus you can land in a situation where a user might associate bad experiences with an unofficial client with the actual service and thus leave with a bad impression overall.
  - ungamedplayer 4y ago
    I dont imagine that most users start with the unofficial client.
- amatecha 4y ago
  Yeah, I was thinking as I wrote it, "official clients can probably fulfill that bullet point" hahaha
- wildmanx 4y ago
  Doesn't your API have a problem if it can be misused that way? In other words, shouldn't your backend by default distrust the client using its API, no matter whether it's the official one or anything else? Even the official client can have bugs that bring down your backend. That's what the "zero trust" philosophy is about.

Shadonototra 4y ago

hopefully people at Slack are smart and they hire the dude but since they spit buggy electron shit for decade already, i think you are right, they'll do everything possible to shut this down and keep with their inefficient and bloated electron way

harikb 4y ago
Slack is no longer a small private company. They are owned by Salesforce

kevingadd 4y ago

IMO lawsuits are less of a concern than your end users getting banned, especially since slack is typically used for work. If your existing customers are loudly angry about you in public it's gonna make it hard to get new ones

heretogetout 4y ago
If I got banned, I don't know what I'd do first -- open a bottle of champagne or dance a little jig?

madrox 4y ago

To be fair, I'd love to see a case like this brought to court. I'm not sure there's great precedent here. I think a case could be made that Slack was not harmed through this work.

tptacek 4y ago
I'd like to hear a lawyer (HN has several) corroborate this "Slack must articulate harm" claim, because there is a whole branch of civil law that exists to enforce contracts in the absence of torts; as I understand it, it's called "contract law".
- madrox 4y ago
  This is true, and not all contracts are valid. It's why I'd love to see a good case brought. I feel like every time this happens the little guy just folds instead of doubling down. But agree, would love to see some lawyers weigh in.
userbinator 4y ago
The closest precedent might be something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexmark_International,_Inc._v._Static_Control_Components,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexmark_International,_Inc._v..... or whatever laws make the aftermarket parts industry legal.

Kaze404 4y ago

It does, though. You need to buy a $20 license to use Slack's features.

jessefied123 4y ago

This is just wrong lol. Cancel has never received C&D orders for Ripcord, and it does charge $20 for the Slack features. Please don't spread misinformation you're not even informed correctly on, dude. If they were going to order a C&D order to Cancel, then they would've done it around the project's start (around 6ish years ago). Actually research this stuff before posting posts like these, plz.

amedvednikov 4y ago
From this user's top post on HN: > Over the years I've found writing on HackerNews, Reddit and other online sites has given me an outlet to get creative and engage with folks in a way that will shift discourse towards something I'm more interested in. I regularly lie and pretend I know about topics and areas I have zero experience in. I began noticing I received more upvotes and engagement
- mh- 4y ago
  ..yikes. someone admitting to that behavior on HN should be banned. that's actively hostile to the discourse here.
- mulmen 4y ago
  How do you see top posts?
  - amedvednikov 4y ago
    Click on the username => submissions
    - mulmen 4y ago
      Ah, ok, I would call that a “submission” but it’s an “Ask HN” so I see where you came up with “post”. Note that the submission page is sorted chronologically, not by karma. So the concept of “top” is really more like “first”. It seems you meant to point out that @Mandatum admitted to lying but the way you phrased it really made it difficult to verify the claim and came across to me like you were accusing @jessefied123. There were some very strong responses [1] to your accusation and I’m concerned that anger may be directed at the wrong person. When making these kinds of accusations you should try to be more clear. Use names and provide links. Also consider if the benefit of the accusation is worth the risk of misunderstanding. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31928612 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31928612

Ndymium 4y ago

I wouldn't be so sure. IRCCloud offers Slack connectivity (using Slack's API, not the IRC bridge that was closed long ago) and it costs money. I've used it for a couple of years now.