301–310 of 391 posts
I'm sticking with Vue, even if (and that's a big if) it might also infringe facebook patents.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, anecdotally speaking of course, my company does work for most of the major (a) banks, (b) telcos and (c) insurance companies in Canada, and the majority of them are moving from Angular 1.x to React (because Angular 4 is a mess) for their front-end work, both on the public and secure side of things. Hopefully they've all done their due diligence..
That's interesting. I've done a good deal of work in all three verticals and introducing a restricted license in any of their environments would have been a tough sell that involved a legal review and a well documented business case. I can think of a few where I can guarantee they would never allow it - and not based on any problems with React's license in particular, but because of internal history.
A lot of these groups still see front-end tech as just HTML and CSS..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm neither and English isn't my first language (not that legalese is even close to any sane kind of English from last 200 years..) but due to my deep interest in Free and Open software, old games reimplementations, abandonware, reverse engineers and emulation I spent quite a while reading about legal stuff. The part you said is important sounds like you lose the right to use the patent in the given software if you a…
Another difference is what is covered. Apache is about suing, Facebook's BSD says you can't even 'take a direct financial interest in' any of the stuff they don't want you doing. I do fully support this bit though, which is specifically to avoid that whole thing where Microsoft was bankrolling patent trolls.
If you happen to be a ML/VR/cars company and think "oh, we use React on one tiny website that'd be cheap to rewrite and Facebook uses without paying our 42314 super expensive patents for ML and self driving cars and VR.. should we sue them?" you already are using React patents illegally because you took financial interest in patent assertion.
With that wording taking out the "you (or any of your subsidiaries, corporate affiliates or agents)" part would still cover cases like bankrolling patent trolls that sue.
And 'patent assertion' means: >A "Patent Assertion" is any lawsuit or other action alleging direct, indirect, or contributory infringement or inducement to infringe any patent, including a cross-claim or counterclaim.
So basically, thanks to that language, being that kind of a company I mentioned above, you could write a blog post saying "WTF, we use React and Facebook uses our expensive shit for free!?!" or even a legal letter to them to stop using patents without getting a grant from you and lose your patent grant already because you are 'alleging' or 'taking financial interest' in 'alleging' or 'lawsuit'.
And other users of software are only protected from you suing them over React patents like in Apache license, Facebook is protected in a special separate way from any patent lawsuit, allegation or even financial consideration of a lawsuit or allegation.
This is very one sided and the reason why I immediately remembered RakNet PATENTS file I've seen back in 2014 when I got hyped over RakNet being open source is because it stuck in my mind how stupid and one sided that patent grant was.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My understanding is that if a company open sources a patent protected code (with one of the standard open source licenses without any additional patent clauses), the company grants anyone the right to use the patented technique without any obligations to the company. Otherwise we would see many cases of code released on liberal licenses, such as MIT, that no one is allowed to use, unless they pay for the patents sepa…
That's definitely not the case. Some licenses like Apache-2 explicitly grant you the use of necessary patents. Others do not. And there are projects which are absolutely covered by patents, yet the code is opensource. That was the situation with Gif and MP3 formats for years. I was involved with an opensource project which got a patent application submitted by the company. Even though I pointed out prior art. And eve…
If you can't use React because of the license, use InfernoJS (MIT). In fact...you should probably use Inferno JS anyway.
Using InfernoJS doesn't mean you aren't infringing on Facebook patents.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could I ask what those bugs we're and if you had filed an issue for them? I don't have any deployed projects based on it, but I've played with it and talked to the main dev a couple of times - he's usually very on top of it.
I'd be curious to hear about this too - I don't see any issues filed or commented on by him, perhaps the bugs are more perceptual mismatches with his React experience as opposed to actual bugs. We only recently released preact/debug, which brings with it some of the guardrails React ships by default - maybe without those people run into issues. FWIW there are hundreds of companies (some very very large) using Preact…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Off the top of my head big users of React include: * Apple (their entire dev docs site is built in it, and they've hosted Bay Area React user meet-ups) * Twitter (for their mobile web) * Microsoft (parts of Visual Studio use it) * Netflix (all over their frontend stack) ...as well as Dropbox, AirBnb, Venmo... So whilst I don't doubt you've discussed it with concerned counsel, there are huge corporations deploying Rea…
To add on to this list, even IBM with their large patent portfolio has a large number of teams deploying projects using React and other FB OSS technology. Disclaimer: I work for IBM.
Source: Friends at IBM