No, but there is clearly use cases for Craigslist having an API. Instead of suing everyone who wants to use their data to make beautiful products, they should be giving people legal ways of doing so.
The problem for Craigslist is that the one thing people want is a better interface. If CL provides an API people can use to build an alternative frontend, and users start to go to these frontends instead of CL itself, there's nothing to stop those new frontends from extending CL with their own listings, and eventually extinguishing it. That was PadLister's business model.
Padlister/Padmapper doesn't make money from from CL listings. Padlister charges money if listers listing directly on Padlister decides to use the online application.
Apparently they offered PadMapper paid access but PadMapper declined. Articles like this make PadMapper look even worse to me.
And sloppy journalism. Why won't anyone ask PadMapper why they decided against? This is like half of a linkbait article. The fact that CL offered paid access was in last week's HN stories. I bet there's a breathless follow-up article with that fact, trolling for additional page views.
Most users use padmapper through the website. CL offered a license only for mobile apps, which, depending on your point of view "a license with a crappy option, but a license nonetheless", or "a license that's completely not applicable".
