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

81–90 of 622 posts

Re: Explaining React's license

#81

Post by wolco »

grizzles wrote: post #15

Facebook's position on this is weird. Any company that wants to use react and avoid liability arising from Facebook's terms can do so easily by incorporating a subsidiary or wholly separate company and paying that company $1 to license the UI built on react. Maybe this is about fencing off Google/Amazon/Alibaba/etc who might be reluctant to do something that would be technically legal but something that a jury might…

Unfortunately the wording covers a subsidiary, agents act on behalf and any interest including financial even in an indirect way.

Re: Explaining React's license

#82

Post by Lazare »

jwingy wrote: post #60

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.

> I wonder how Facebook would feel if all the open source software they currently use incorporated the same license.

I'm pretty sure they'd be thrilled. That seems to be their aim.

> I bet it would deter them from enjoying much of the code they built their business on.

Why? Serious question; I just don't see why Facebook would care.

Re: Explaining React's license

#83

Post by threatofrain »

JoshMnem wrote: post #77

I'm not sure if React (and the other projects that contain the PATENTS file) will survive the backlash to this in the long run. Vue.js is rapidly climbing in popularity, and Elm is probably going to go mainstream in 2018. There are alternatives like Mithril and Ember too.

Elm going mainstream?! What a prediction!

Re: Explaining React's license

#84

Post by losvedir »

carussell wrote: post #79
jwingy wrote: post #60

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.

> how Facebook would feel if all the open source software they currently use incorporated the same license That would work incredibly well to neutralize patents, actually, and would be a huge win for free/open source software. It's surprising not to have seen anyone point out the logical conclusion of a world where every major license includes a React-like stance on patents: it's a world where no one is able to bring…

In fact, this is explicitly part of their reasoning, from the blog post linked to in the GitHub comment here:

> 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.

Re: Explaining React's license

#85

Post by pdfernhout »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #68
pdfernhout wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We don't know for sure what React-related patents Facebook really has or if they would claim any other libraries infringe them -- or whether those patents would stand up in court given prior art. There are vdom-like approaches that predate React.

That said, I would expect that vdom libraries like Mithril that work in a very different way than React would be less likely to be claimed by Facebook to infringe a React-related patent than, say, Preact which tries to duplicate the React API.

Of course, this is all speculation with a lot of unknowns. It all is another example of why software patents are very problematical ways to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".

Re: Explaining React's license

#86

Post by Lazare »

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…

If Facebook has a patent on React, it's almost certainly going to be on the vdom concept.

If Facebook has a patent on the vdom, then all the projects in your list violate the patent, and none of them come with even a conditional patent grant from Facebook.

If Facebook does not have a patent on the vdom or other React technology, then those other projects are safe, but so is React, since termination of the patent grant has zero cost to you.

My personal belief is that Facebook has no patents on React, so I feel safe to use React, Mithril, or any other vdom based library. But I can certainly understand people who feel like they need to play it safe, assume Facebook does have a vdom patent, and avoid all such libraries.

But I'm not really following your logic at all. It's like you think Facebook has a patent, but then you only want to use the libraries that maximise your ability to get sued over it? What am I missing?

Re: Explaining React's license

#87

Post by jasonkostempski »

carussell wrote: post #79
jwingy wrote: post #60

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.

> how Facebook would feel if all the open source software they currently use incorporated the same license That would work incredibly well to neutralize patents, actually, and would be a huge win for free/open source software. It's surprising not to have seen anyone point out the logical conclusion of a world where every major license includes a React-like stance on patents: it's a world where no one is able to bring…

> be a win for free/open source software

Any project with such a license would be non-free, so I'm not sure how that would be a win for free software.

Re: Explaining React's license

#88

Post by wolco »

throwgoog452 wrote: post #7

People used to say that the GPL was illegal, unacceptable, immoral, and all sorts of other things. Then, gradually, everyone started using it, and copyleft became an acceptable software licensing strategy. I hope that BSD + Patents also achieves gradual acceptability.

The more conditions we apply the less usage it will get. But adding conditions like everyone can share in the changes provides a different value and encourages more changes.

GPL works because it forces the source code to remain open allowing everyone to enjoy all new changes.

BSD works because you are free to repackage and resell with bsd code. This code can be used in an existing product.

Re: Explaining React's license

#89

Post by kuschku »

carussell wrote: post #79
jwingy wrote: post #60

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.

> how Facebook would feel if all the open source software they currently use incorporated the same license That would work incredibly well to neutralize patents, actually, and would be a huge win for free/open source software. It's surprising not to have seen anyone point out the logical conclusion of a world where every major license includes a React-like stance on patents: it's a world where no one is able to bring…

This is sadly false.

This would only neutralize patents of actual companies that have something to create.

The only ones left to hold patents would be patent trolls. This would just massively empower patent trolls, and harm everyone. Because patent trolls don’t have to license patents there’s no risk for them.

Re: Explaining React's license

#90

Post by falcolas »

Lazare wrote: post #86
pdfernhout wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If Facebook has a patent on React, it's almost certainly going to be on the vdom concept. If Facebook has a patent on the vdom, then all the projects in your list violate the patent, and none of them come with even a conditional patent grant from Facebook. If Facebook does not have a patent on the vdom or other React technology, then those other projects are safe, but so is React , since termination of the patent gra…

Being sued, whether the patent is valid or not, is really expensive. Unless you're Google, or of similar size, you're going to lose just due to the costs.

Using React just opens you up to liability, with no real benefit (other than using React). Why would you use it?

Post reply on HN