Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Explaining React's license

code.facebook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 622 posts

Re: Explaining React's license

#61

Post by ricardobeat »

tbrock wrote: post #25

Isn't the style of programming react imposes (unidirectional data flow and component composition) the real innovation for front end applications here? Sure the dom diffing technology was hot at the time it came out but it's basically is a commodity item at this point. In that sense, the open source community can (and should) build multiple react clones that are licensed more liberally. Sure, I'm annoyed by the licens…

React is not concerned at all with state management (other than local state), and there are decades of prior art for component systems.

Re: Explaining React's license

#63

Post by jwingy »

I wonder how Facebook would feel if all the open source software they currently use incorporated the same license. I bet it would deter them from enjoying much of the code they built their business on. This stance seems pretty antithetical to the goal and spirit of open source software and I really hope it's not the beginning of other companies following suit and 'poisoning' the well of other open source projects.

Re: Explaining React's license

#64

Post by cbuq »

eridius wrote: post #35

> We've been looking for ways around this and have reached out to ASF to see if we could try to work with them, but have come up empty. There's a pretty obvious solution to this: relicense React. The fact that Facebook isn't even considering that is a pretty strong indication that they "weaponized" their license on purpose. > To this point, though, we haven't done a good job of explaining the reasons behind our BSD +…

They need to stop referring to React as open source software. This is proprietary source code.

> We believe that if this license were widely adopted, it could actually reduce meritless litigation for all adopters, and we want to work with others to explore this possibility.

They do not give a pathway for litigation with merit. This is a patent weapon.

Re: Explaining React's license

#66

Post by joobus »

pdfernhout wrote: post #34
Steeeve wrote: post #5

> We've been looking for ways around this and have reached out to ASF to see if we could try to work with them, but have come up empty. This, to me, is a significant warning sign. I was leery of the React license to begin with. But the community at large had _almost_ convinced me that it was nothing to worry about. Unfortunately, Facebook's position as stated here is clearly that the license is weaponized for a reaso…

Yeah, I got tons of pushback when I tried to steer Automattic and the WordPress community away from React in 2015 with people saying not to worry: "Replace React with Mithril for licensing reasons" https://github.com/Automattic/wp-calypso/issues/650 Personally, I increasingly doubt that BSD+PATENTS is even GPL-compatible -- and so potentially Automattic may be violating the GPL by using React integrated with WordPres…

React also has react-native. There is no comparable alternative for that.

Re: Explaining React's license

#67

Post by valuearb »

fhrow4484 wrote: post #4

This is in reply to the Apache Software Foundation decision to list the BSD + Patents license as a Category-X license. - Facebook gets attacked by meritless patent litigation - Facebook creates the BSD + Patents license, which has the following effect : > The patent grant says that if you're going to use the software we've released under it, you lose the patent license from us if you sue us for patent infringement. -…

Since patents are evil, I have no problem with some small startup losing the ability to be a patent troll.

Re: Explaining React's license

#68

Post by bryanlarsen »

pdfernhout wrote: post #34
Steeeve wrote: post #5

> We've been looking for ways around this and have reached out to ASF to see if we could try to work with them, but have come up empty. This, to me, is a significant warning sign. I was leery of the React license to begin with. But the community at large had _almost_ convinced me that it was nothing to worry about. Unfortunately, Facebook's position as stated here is clearly that the license is weaponized for a reaso…

Yeah, I got tons of pushback when I tried to steer Automattic and the WordPress community away from React in 2015 with people saying not to worry: "Replace React with Mithril for licensing reasons" https://github.com/Automattic/wp-calypso/issues/650 Personally, I increasingly doubt that BSD+PATENTS is even GPL-compatible -- and so potentially Automattic may be violating the GPL by using React integrated with WordPres…

Most of those twenty probably infringe on Facebook patents. You can choose to use a library with an explicit grant, or a library with unclear patent status.

Re: Explaining React's license

#69

Post by ufo »

abhisuri97 wrote: post #32

ELI5 anyone? My basic understanding is if you use React and decide to sue FB for patent infringement down the line, FB can countersue(?) bc they revoke your grant to use the patent upon you suing them. But what _exactly_ constitutes using React? Of course using the library is one thing, but what about using some other library that installs React as some dependency? Does using JSX also count as using "React"? I just f…

IANAL but...

> but what about using some other library that installs React as some dependency?

I think that still counts as "using react".

> Does using JSX also count as using "React"?

I think that if you use a custom JSX compiler instead of the one that comes with React then you could be clean. JSX itself is just a programming language and cannot be copyrighted.

> I just feel that what exactly constitutes using React is very vague esp

I don't think that is vague, actually. In the end, what matters is if the whole system includes React source code in some way or another.

> and associated technologies, eg the idea of Virtual DOM

Associated technologies are not covered by copyright. They could possibly be covered by patents but that would be a whole different can of worms.

Re: Explaining React's license

#70

Post by gstein67 »

There is a lot of confusion with regards to one point: the Apache Software Foundation did not make a request for a license change.

The Foundation does not presuppose to know how others should license their products. That is those others' choice. The Foundation does have policies on what licenses can be used, within the Foundation's projects. But that is for our projects, and not the same as pushing back against license holders.

So please. Stop with the meme of "Facebook rejected the Foundation's request". Not true. Facebook made a business choice, and the Apache Software Foundation will make its own choices.

The request came from one our projects' committers. Please do not confuse who speaks for whom.

Post reply on HN