Facebook React.js License

Unrelated to the actual content of the page.. but why does this site require 1.25Mb of javascript to load? It makes up nearly 70% of the entire page, and is responsible for almost 60% of the requests needed to render the page. Do you really need to use that much javascript just to render a blog post. Why?

Those webfonts also took multiple seconds to retrieve leaving the page essentially completely blank to visitors until their browsers finally pulled them down. It paused long enough I was wondering if HN had sent sufficient traffic to bring the site down.

Here's an output to a quick stab at loading the page using pingdom: https://tools.pingdom.com/#!/cpZuGy/http://www.elcaminolegal...

"Does the additional patent grant in the Facebook BSD+Patents license terminate if Facebook sues me for patent infringement first, and then I respond with a patent counterclaim against Facebook."

No, unless your patent counterclaim is related to Facebook's software licensed under the Facebook BSD+Patents license.

I think this sums up everything.

Just use Polymer, vue or something else without that problem :-)

Which brings us back to my original question ;)

A license (such as Facebook's) that prevents me from redistributing a modified version could still qualify as "open source" so long as simple mirroring wasn't restricted.

> In practice, open source stands for criteria a little looser than those of free software. As far as we know, all existing released free software source code would qualify as open source. Nearly all open source software is free software, but there are exceptions. First, some open source licenses are too restrictive, so they do not qualify as free licenses. For example, “Open Watcom” is nonfree because its license does not allow making a modified version and using it privately. Fortunately, few programs use such licenses.

> Second, and more important in practice, many products containing computers check signatures on their executable programs to block users from installing different executables; only one privileged company can make executables that can run in the device or can access its full capabilities. We call these devices “tyrants”, and the practice is called “tivoization” after the product (Tivo) where we first saw it. Even if the executable is made from free source code, the users cannot run modified versions of it, so the executable is nonfree.

> The criteria for open source do not recognize this issue; they are concerned solely with the licensing of the source code. Thus, these unmodifiable executables, when made from source code such as Linux that is open source and free, are open source but not free. Many Android products contain nonfree tivoized executables of Linux.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.h...

(Pasted the most relevant portion in case you lack reading skills.)