15 ms·

WhatsApp issued takedown against alternative clients a week before acquisition

208 points by martinml 13y ago

snkcld 13y ago
wtf. i had no idea this could be done to open source code.
- sbarre 13y ago
  I'm not going to comment on the validity of this specific case, but "open source" doesn't automatically mean "protected from copyright law infringement".
- jotato 13y ago
  From what I understand, companies _have_ to do stuff like this. By not protecting a copyright or trademark you are, in effect, giving it up. Calling your API "node.whatsapp" is using their trademark, and they do have the right and responsibility to protect it. It doesn't make them wrong; just a jerk :)
  - skywhopper 13y ago
    They have to do it to protect trademark, but not copyright. I'm not sure there's any real copyright claim to be made here. The DMCA does have provisions against reverse engineering etc. It's not clear to me from this notice exactly what's believed to be infringing other than the Trademark claim, which is pretty straightforward (and easily gotten around).
    - captainmuon 13y ago
      I always wondered, if a company doesn't really want to protect their trademark (too much hassle), but has to, can't they just grant people a (temporary, revokable) right to use the trademark pro forma? I remember seeing a company (something Linux-related) that had a very strict trademark policy, and they did sue people who used their logo or their name, or event something different but similar. But their web site had a form where you could just enter your email address and name, and it would say oki-doki, you may now use our trademark as you like, until we say otherwise.
      - chc 13y ago
        You could do that, but probably not in WhatsApp's case, assuming that aggressive trademark protection was a condition of the acquisition deal.
    - kuschku 13y ago
      > The DMCA does have provisions against reverse engineering Here in the EU reverse engineering is allowed and even if you sign a contract saying you won't reverse engineer something you've still got the right to do it. How would the DMCA comply with this, would anyone be able to shut down legally reverse engineered code on GitHub?
      - petercooper 13y ago
        GitHub is located and hosted in the US, so US rules apply when it comes to takedowns, etc.
goatforce5 13y ago
> This continues to cause significant harm to WhatsApp. $16bn says otherwise.
- cbhl 13y ago
  Maybe libraries/clients would impact WhatsApp's ability to rework their backend to use FB infra now that they've been acquired?
  - erichurkman 13y ago
    But they are third party libraries; WhatsApp has no obligation for backwards compatibility.
    - Jtsummers 13y ago
      Yes, but... With a sufficiently widespread third party library they risk a backlash with their userbase. Social networks depend so much on the network effect to bring in users that cutting out a large chunk of users all at once because the protocol changed could cause more users to drop out. Thinking about it, I wonder how much AIM and MSN Messenger's fights against third party clients messed up their user bases.
      - gamblor956 13y ago
        Their userbase uses the Whatsapp app that comes bundled with their phones on many intl carriers. I don't think they care about the 0.0001% of their userbase that uses third party clients.
        slig 13y ago
        Then one can build a client that mimics one very used bundled client. (so they can't just say "update or you can't log in anymore"). I know that you can't used the outdated version on Android for much longer without being cut off access.
        13y ago
FiloSottile 13y ago
With the poor, let's say terrible, security posture WhatsApp always had, this is really not the way to communicate the message that they care and want their software to be scrutinized. Open implementations are a great help to any reverse engineer trying to figure out the mess that is their protocol. This is exactly what triggers full disclosure.
- balladeer 13y ago
  You know what was pathetic? With all its security and authentication loopholes people still used it. I gave it up for time but friends still won't listen and then I had to come back. Now, Facebook is sth I can't tolerate. At least earlier I didn't run the visible risk of my very intimate messages falling into advertisers' hands.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - gkya 13y ago
    You are technology-aware somehow. Billions of people are not. Us, the IT bunch, must understand this. People buy apps that make fart sounds or only show a damn GIF of a naked someone. People send emails (yes, they somehow manage to do so), and call you after to notify you. Wake up.
- dotBen 13y ago
  "this is really not the way to communicate the message that they ... want their software to be scrutinized" To be fair, isn't the case for most proprietary software - even for the most security-concerned closed-source companies? No one at WhatsApp has ever warrented that their software is open source, that they want to produce open source or that they share open source values.
  - Jtsummers 13y ago
    As I understand it they've contributed a lot back to the erlang platform itself. It's their particular system that they want to keep proprietary.
skywhopper 13y ago
Interesting. Trademark law is probably pretty strong against repositories named "WhatsApp" or something very similar. Using the logo without permission as well. Describing a project as "working with WhatsApp" would probably not be an actionable trademark infringement. Code that works with the WhatsApp API is almost certainly not "infringing", unless there's some "encryption" going on. Unfortunately the DMCA takedown rules are such that Internet providers such as Github have basically no direct recourse and refusing to comply is not an option. Additionally, complainants don't have to prove much of anything to issue a takedown notice to a service provider. This is a seriously broken part of copyright law, IMO.
- skywhopper 13y ago
  That said, this complaint doesn't appear to me to be explicit enough to meet with GitHub's takedown policy (https://help.github.com/articles/dmca-takedown-policy https://help.github.com/articles/dmca-takedown-policy), which requires "Identify the copyrighted work you believe has been infringed. The specificity of your identification may depend on the nature of the work you believe has been infringed, but may include things like a link to a web page or a specific post (as opposed to a link to a general site URL)." But the complaint itself, besides mentioning trademarks and the WhatsApp name, only says "unauthorized use of WhatsApp APIs, software, and/or services". But the existence of code that can use the WhatsApp API is not the same as actually using WhatsApp's services in an unauthorized manner, so I think this is ripe for some pushback. WhatsApp can easily enough restrict API access to its own clients if it chooses to do so, which is a far better solution than trying to shut down what's apparently an easy library to write.
  - ig1 13y ago
    How would you propose they do that ? - there's nothing magical they can do that will identify official clients that third parties couldn't replicate.
    - imdsm 13y ago
      Surely that is their problem?
bachback 13y ago
666 github stars for the repo :)
dpe82 13y ago
I wouldn't read too much into this. As part of their purchase agreement WhatsApp likely needed to say that they had been diligent in maintaining and defending their copyrights and trademark. That's pretty standard in a financing, so I'd imagine it's a standard part of M&A deals. It probably turned up during due diligence that they had some "cleanup" to take care of in order to not be lying when they made that representation.
- Niten 13y ago
  It's pretty disgusting to dismiss this level of abuse of the DMCA (these aren't even legitimate copyright issues!) and legal bullying under the guise of standard operating procedure. It's over-the-top wrong.
tsaoutourpants 13y ago
That is not a DMCA takedown request. It is merely a takedown request. The person to whom it was sent has no obligation to comply.
- comex 13y ago
  The copyright part is. Also, I wouldn't describe the DMCA safe harbor as an obligation to comply. More of a benefit to complying that doesn't apply to trademark (with the default in both cases being susceptibility to hypothetical lawsuits).
- drakethes 13y ago
  If you visit any of the links in the request they state "Repository unavailable due to DMCA takedown"
- tapsboy 13y ago
  It is a markdown version posted by github for the original DMCA takedown notice sent to github https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/README.markdown https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/README.markdown
comex 13y ago
IANAL, but these claims can't last. To the extent those projects are using WhatsApp's trademarks or copyrighted logos, they can stop infringing by renaming and removing the logos. There might be a "hacking" claim against users who use that software to access WhatsApp's servers, but not copyright (assuming WhatsApp doesn't claim copyright over messages sent through the aervice), of unknown validity, and probably not enforceable against a site which merely hosts code to do so. I think.
chenster 13y ago
This is the HTML version: https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2014-02-12-WhatsApp.md https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2014-02-12-WhatsA...
WizzleKake 13y ago
It looks like Github has pulled a bunch of the repos, including the ones that don't even have "WhatsApp" in their names. Is this because they had something like "compatible with WhatsApp" in their descriptions? If I were repository owners and/or paying customer of Github, I would not be OK with this.
- instakill 13y ago
  I have a repo called whatsapp analyzer. Guess it was looked over.
1337biz 13y ago
Interesting to see how the priorities beginning to shift once somebody gets ready to make a deal with the devil.
viraptor 13y ago
> unauthorized use of WhatsApp APIs Does that actually have anything to do with copyright or trademark, or are they just very takedown-happy lawyers?
- icebraining 13y ago
  I don't think that has been decided yet. It was the main issue during the Oracle v. Google trial, but if I remember correctly, the judge declined to rule on whether APIs could be copyrighted or not.
TallGuyShort 13y ago
I've enjoyed looking through that Github repository. Lots of snarky comments in the commit log about requests from Sony.
etanazir 13y ago
all you message are belong to us
yuvadam 13y ago
I own one of the affected repositories, and submitted the original link to HN the moment I got an email notification about it from Github [1]. It's a shame we didn't get the discussion going earlier. IANAL, but what the hell does a security POC (and an unofficial API derived from it) have to do copyrights? On what grounds did a repo get chosen for takedown? Is it the "whatsapp" in the name? What about a simple "x.whatsapp.net" connection string in the code? Is that infringement? Either way, shitty move by WhatsApp. [1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7230041 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7230041
- eli 13y ago
  You're aware that you have rights under DMCA too? File a counter-notification[1] explaining why you think the takedown isn't valid and Github will likely put the repo back online. And if WhatsApp doesn't like it, they can sue you. [1] http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca/counter512.pdf http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca/counter512.pdf
  - tn13 13y ago
    With $19B in pocket they can totally ruin his life with a lawsuit.
    - eli 13y ago
      It's a pretty big leap from a vague and threatening letter to a life-ruining lawsuit... but IANAL and that's certainly possible.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - Bluestrike2 13y ago
      Assuming you're filing a counter-notice in an instance where you have a good faith belief that the original takedown notice is in error, and that you can support that belief, it's rather unlikely that the counter-notice alone will make the supposed copyright holder more disposed towards litigation. Especially if they knowingly misrepresented matters in the takedown, opening themselves up to damages and attorney's fees. In any case, they can already sue you regardless of whether a takedown notice is issued in the first place. :)
chid 13y ago
Interesting, so what would happen if I were to upload a copy of these repos under a new name? (not that I was going to)
void-star 13y ago
Wireshark dissector plugin? taken down? I haven't really followed wireshark goings-on in a while, but wow... just wow... I don't think i've seen this before: https://github.com/davidgfnet/wireshark-whatsapp https://github.com/davidgfnet/wireshark-whatsapp My apologies for the bile, but I can't help but call out my reactions to this news... 1. facebook (you: I expected this from, you we're already #1 on this s#17list) 2. whatsapp (sell-out!) 3. github (highly disappointed watching you just lay down and immediately comply shutting down these repositories) I'm considering moving all my code off of github over this...
wreegab 13y ago
People really liked this one: https://github.com/davidgfnet/whatsapp-purple https://github.com/davidgfnet/whatsapp-purple Starred 419 times.
tgalal 13y ago
I own 3 of the affected repos: Yowsup https://github.com/tgalal/yowsup https://github.com/tgalal/yowsup MIT License It is a library that implements WhatsApp's protocol. It is built on community effort of reverse engineering WhatsApp's protocol. I created this in first place to bring WhatsApp on an unsupported platform (Nokia N9/ meego platform) Wazapp https://github.com/tgalal/wazapp https://github.com/tgalal/wazapp GPLv2 License This is a UI frontend to Yowsup for Nokia N9. Nokia N9 is the only smartphone produced by Nokia which never got WhatsApp support. I created this client because I wanted to use WhatsApp on my Nokia N9. The code is totally decoupled from Yowsup, and does not use WhatsApp in its name. You can see its icon here http://everythingn9.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/wazapp.png http://everythingn9.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/wazapp.pn... which for me looks different enough from official client's icon. OpenWA https://github.com/tgalal/OpenWhatsappBB10 https://github.com/tgalal/OpenWhatsappBB10 GPLv3 License This is also a frontend to Yowsup, but for Blackberry 10. It is a little bit similar case as Wazapp. I created this for BB10 when WhatsApp initially said they're not supporting that platform. Again, this is decoupled from Yowsup, has same icon as Wazapp. Its name though on Github is OpenWhatsappB10, as a project name. However, the real app name is OpenWA. Perhaps a rename of the repository would be sufficient ?
- DjangoReinhardt 13y ago
  I was toying around with your (quite excellent) Yowsup library a little while ago and the one question I always had was this: Since WhatsApp doesn't have an official library, wasn't Yowsup always in the cross-hairs? I mean, it was only a matter of time before they clamped down and claimed that you were violating section 3.A.iii of the ToS by reverse-engineering the WhatsApp protocol, right? Don't get me wrong, I would have loved it if Yowsup was allowed as an (unofficial) API - or something like that. However, as a newbie to the world of programming & software development in general, I am trying to understand what was wrong about the DMCA notice. What, in your opinion, should they have done instead?

208 points by martinml 13y ago

snkcld 13y ago

wtf. i had no idea this could be done to open source code.

sbarre 13y ago
I'm not going to comment on the validity of this specific case, but "open source" doesn't automatically mean "protected from copyright law infringement".
jotato 13y ago
From what I understand, companies _have_ to do stuff like this. By not protecting a copyright or trademark you are, in effect, giving it up. Calling your API "node.whatsapp" is using their trademark, and they do have the right and responsibility to protect it. It doesn't make them wrong; just a jerk :)
- skywhopper 13y ago
  They have to do it to protect trademark, but not copyright. I'm not sure there's any real copyright claim to be made here. The DMCA does have provisions against reverse engineering etc. It's not clear to me from this notice exactly what's believed to be infringing other than the Trademark claim, which is pretty straightforward (and easily gotten around).
  - captainmuon 13y ago
    I always wondered, if a company doesn't really want to protect their trademark (too much hassle), but has to, can't they just grant people a (temporary, revokable) right to use the trademark pro forma? I remember seeing a company (something Linux-related) that had a very strict trademark policy, and they did sue people who used their logo or their name, or event something different but similar. But their web site had a form where you could just enter your email address and name, and it would say oki-doki, you may now use our trademark as you like, until we say otherwise.
    - chc 13y ago
      You could do that, but probably not in WhatsApp's case, assuming that aggressive trademark protection was a condition of the acquisition deal.
  - kuschku 13y ago
    > The DMCA does have provisions against reverse engineering Here in the EU reverse engineering is allowed and even if you sign a contract saying you won't reverse engineer something you've still got the right to do it. How would the DMCA comply with this, would anyone be able to shut down legally reverse engineered code on GitHub?
    - petercooper 13y ago
      GitHub is located and hosted in the US, so US rules apply when it comes to takedowns, etc.

goatforce5 13y ago

> This continues to cause significant harm to WhatsApp. $16bn says otherwise.

cbhl 13y ago
Maybe libraries/clients would impact WhatsApp's ability to rework their backend to use FB infra now that they've been acquired?
- erichurkman 13y ago
  But they are third party libraries; WhatsApp has no obligation for backwards compatibility.
  - Jtsummers 13y ago
    Yes, but... With a sufficiently widespread third party library they risk a backlash with their userbase. Social networks depend so much on the network effect to bring in users that cutting out a large chunk of users all at once because the protocol changed could cause more users to drop out. Thinking about it, I wonder how much AIM and MSN Messenger's fights against third party clients messed up their user bases.
    - gamblor956 13y ago
      Their userbase uses the Whatsapp app that comes bundled with their phones on many intl carriers. I don't think they care about the 0.0001% of their userbase that uses third party clients.
      - slig 13y ago
        Then one can build a client that mimics one very used bundled client. (so they can't just say "update or you can't log in anymore"). I know that you can't used the outdated version on Android for much longer without being cut off access.
      - 13y ago

FiloSottile 13y ago

With the poor, let's say terrible, security posture WhatsApp always had, this is really not the way to communicate the message that they care and want their software to be scrutinized. Open implementations are a great help to any reverse engineer trying to figure out the mess that is their protocol. This is exactly what triggers full disclosure.

balladeer 13y ago
You know what was pathetic? With all its security and authentication loopholes people still used it. I gave it up for time but friends still won't listen and then I had to come back. Now, Facebook is sth I can't tolerate. At least earlier I didn't run the visible risk of my very intimate messages falling into advertisers' hands.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- gkya 13y ago
  You are technology-aware somehow. Billions of people are not. Us, the IT bunch, must understand this. People buy apps that make fart sounds or only show a damn GIF of a naked someone. People send emails (yes, they somehow manage to do so), and call you after to notify you. Wake up.
dotBen 13y ago
"this is really not the way to communicate the message that they ... want their software to be scrutinized" To be fair, isn't the case for most proprietary software - even for the most security-concerned closed-source companies? No one at WhatsApp has ever warrented that their software is open source, that they want to produce open source or that they share open source values.
- Jtsummers 13y ago
  As I understand it they've contributed a lot back to the erlang platform itself. It's their particular system that they want to keep proprietary.

skywhopper 13y ago

Interesting. Trademark law is probably pretty strong against repositories named "WhatsApp" or something very similar. Using the logo without permission as well. Describing a project as "working with WhatsApp" would probably not be an actionable trademark infringement. Code that works with the WhatsApp API is almost certainly not "infringing", unless there's some "encryption" going on. Unfortunately the DMCA takedown rules are such that Internet providers such as Github have basically no direct recourse and refusing to comply is not an option. Additionally, complainants don't have to prove much of anything to issue a takedown notice to a service provider. This is a seriously broken part of copyright law, IMO.

skywhopper 13y ago
That said, this complaint doesn't appear to me to be explicit enough to meet with GitHub's takedown policy (https://help.github.com/articles/dmca-takedown-policy https://help.github.com/articles/dmca-takedown-policy), which requires "Identify the copyrighted work you believe has been infringed. The specificity of your identification may depend on the nature of the work you believe has been infringed, but may include things like a link to a web page or a specific post (as opposed to a link to a general site URL)." But the complaint itself, besides mentioning trademarks and the WhatsApp name, only says "unauthorized use of WhatsApp APIs, software, and/or services". But the existence of code that can use the WhatsApp API is not the same as actually using WhatsApp's services in an unauthorized manner, so I think this is ripe for some pushback. WhatsApp can easily enough restrict API access to its own clients if it chooses to do so, which is a far better solution than trying to shut down what's apparently an easy library to write.
- ig1 13y ago
  How would you propose they do that ? - there's nothing magical they can do that will identify official clients that third parties couldn't replicate.
  - imdsm 13y ago
    Surely that is their problem?

bachback 13y ago

666 github stars for the repo :)

dpe82 13y ago

I wouldn't read too much into this. As part of their purchase agreement WhatsApp likely needed to say that they had been diligent in maintaining and defending their copyrights and trademark. That's pretty standard in a financing, so I'd imagine it's a standard part of M&A deals. It probably turned up during due diligence that they had some "cleanup" to take care of in order to not be lying when they made that representation.

Niten 13y ago
It's pretty disgusting to dismiss this level of abuse of the DMCA (these aren't even legitimate copyright issues!) and legal bullying under the guise of standard operating procedure. It's over-the-top wrong.

tsaoutourpants 13y ago

That is not a DMCA takedown request. It is merely a takedown request. The person to whom it was sent has no obligation to comply.

comex 13y ago
The copyright part is. Also, I wouldn't describe the DMCA safe harbor as an obligation to comply. More of a benefit to complying that doesn't apply to trademark (with the default in both cases being susceptibility to hypothetical lawsuits).
drakethes 13y ago
If you visit any of the links in the request they state "Repository unavailable due to DMCA takedown"
tapsboy 13y ago
It is a markdown version posted by github for the original DMCA takedown notice sent to github https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/README.markdown https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/README.markdown

comex 13y ago

IANAL, but these claims can't last. To the extent those projects are using WhatsApp's trademarks or copyrighted logos, they can stop infringing by renaming and removing the logos. There might be a "hacking" claim against users who use that software to access WhatsApp's servers, but not copyright (assuming WhatsApp doesn't claim copyright over messages sent through the aervice), of unknown validity, and probably not enforceable against a site which merely hosts code to do so. I think.

chenster 13y ago

This is the HTML version: https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2014-02-12-WhatsApp.md https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2014-02-12-WhatsA...

WizzleKake 13y ago

It looks like Github has pulled a bunch of the repos, including the ones that don't even have "WhatsApp" in their names. Is this because they had something like "compatible with WhatsApp" in their descriptions? If I were repository owners and/or paying customer of Github, I would not be OK with this.

instakill 13y ago
I have a repo called whatsapp analyzer. Guess it was looked over.

1337biz 13y ago

Interesting to see how the priorities beginning to shift once somebody gets ready to make a deal with the devil.

viraptor 13y ago

> unauthorized use of WhatsApp APIs Does that actually have anything to do with copyright or trademark, or are they just very takedown-happy lawyers?

icebraining 13y ago
I don't think that has been decided yet. It was the main issue during the Oracle v. Google trial, but if I remember correctly, the judge declined to rule on whether APIs could be copyrighted or not.

TallGuyShort 13y ago

I've enjoyed looking through that Github repository. Lots of snarky comments in the commit log about requests from Sony.

etanazir 13y ago

all you message are belong to us

yuvadam 13y ago

I own one of the affected repositories, and submitted the original link to HN the moment I got an email notification about it from Github [1]. It's a shame we didn't get the discussion going earlier. IANAL, but what the hell does a security POC (and an unofficial API derived from it) have to do copyrights? On what grounds did a repo get chosen for takedown? Is it the "whatsapp" in the name? What about a simple "x.whatsapp.net" connection string in the code? Is that infringement? Either way, shitty move by WhatsApp. [1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7230041 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7230041

eli 13y ago
You're aware that you have rights under DMCA too? File a counter-notification[1] explaining why you think the takedown isn't valid and Github will likely put the repo back online. And if WhatsApp doesn't like it, they can sue you. [1] http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca/counter512.pdf http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca/counter512.pdf
- tn13 13y ago
  With $19B in pocket they can totally ruin his life with a lawsuit.
  - eli 13y ago
    It's a pretty big leap from a vague and threatening letter to a life-ruining lawsuit... but IANAL and that's certainly possible.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - Bluestrike2 13y ago
    Assuming you're filing a counter-notice in an instance where you have a good faith belief that the original takedown notice is in error, and that you can support that belief, it's rather unlikely that the counter-notice alone will make the supposed copyright holder more disposed towards litigation. Especially if they knowingly misrepresented matters in the takedown, opening themselves up to damages and attorney's fees. In any case, they can already sue you regardless of whether a takedown notice is issued in the first place. :)

chid 13y ago

Interesting, so what would happen if I were to upload a copy of these repos under a new name? (not that I was going to)

void-star 13y ago

Wireshark dissector plugin? taken down? I haven't really followed wireshark goings-on in a while, but wow... just wow... I don't think i've seen this before: https://github.com/davidgfnet/wireshark-whatsapp https://github.com/davidgfnet/wireshark-whatsapp My apologies for the bile, but I can't help but call out my reactions to this news... 1. facebook (you: I expected this from, you we're already #1 on this s#17list) 2. whatsapp (sell-out!) 3. github (highly disappointed watching you just lay down and immediately comply shutting down these repositories) I'm considering moving all my code off of github over this...

wreegab 13y ago

People really liked this one: https://github.com/davidgfnet/whatsapp-purple https://github.com/davidgfnet/whatsapp-purple Starred 419 times.

tgalal 13y ago

I own 3 of the affected repos: Yowsup https://github.com/tgalal/yowsup https://github.com/tgalal/yowsup MIT License It is a library that implements WhatsApp's protocol. It is built on community effort of reverse engineering WhatsApp's protocol. I created this in first place to bring WhatsApp on an unsupported platform (Nokia N9/ meego platform) Wazapp https://github.com/tgalal/wazapp https://github.com/tgalal/wazapp GPLv2 License This is a UI frontend to Yowsup for Nokia N9. Nokia N9 is the only smartphone produced by Nokia which never got WhatsApp support. I created this client because I wanted to use WhatsApp on my Nokia N9. The code is totally decoupled from Yowsup, and does not use WhatsApp in its name. You can see its icon here http://everythingn9.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/wazapp.png http://everythingn9.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/wazapp.pn... which for me looks different enough from official client's icon. OpenWA https://github.com/tgalal/OpenWhatsappBB10 https://github.com/tgalal/OpenWhatsappBB10 GPLv3 License This is also a frontend to Yowsup, but for Blackberry 10. It is a little bit similar case as Wazapp. I created this for BB10 when WhatsApp initially said they're not supporting that platform. Again, this is decoupled from Yowsup, has same icon as Wazapp. Its name though on Github is OpenWhatsappB10, as a project name. However, the real app name is OpenWA. Perhaps a rename of the repository would be sufficient ?

DjangoReinhardt 13y ago
I was toying around with your (quite excellent) Yowsup library a little while ago and the one question I always had was this: Since WhatsApp doesn't have an official library, wasn't Yowsup always in the cross-hairs? I mean, it was only a matter of time before they clamped down and claimed that you were violating section 3.A.iii of the ToS by reverse-engineering the WhatsApp protocol, right? Don't get me wrong, I would have loved it if Yowsup was allowed as an (unofficial) API - or something like that. However, as a newbie to the world of programming & software development in general, I am trying to understand what was wrong about the DMCA notice. What, in your opinion, should they have done instead?