Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Facebook will revoke your React license. you mean their patent grant? How can an open source license like apache, MIT or bsd be "revoked"? Do facebook have a public blacklist of people who aren't allowed to use react?
um... because it's they can? I can make a library with MIT license to everyone else but you. MIT and BSD licenses merely provide short-cuts to understanding a project's licensing
Explaining React's license
151–160 of 622 posts
Re: Explaining React's license
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Facebook will revoke your React license. you mean their patent grant? How can an open source license like apache, MIT or bsd be "revoked"? Do facebook have a public blacklist of people who aren't allowed to use react?
um... because it's they can? I can make a library with MIT license to everyone else but you. MIT and BSD licenses merely provide short-cuts to understanding a project's licensing
Re: Explaining React's license
#153I love love love love love react as a technology, but this is just awful. I believe any developer not on Facebook's payroll still contributing to React or React native at this point has a moral obligation to stop. I personally feel like such a fool for not taking all this seriously before the ASF gave me a wakeup call. React is a trojan horse into the open source community that Facebook purposely and maliciously stee…
Its not that great anyways when compared to angular 2/4. There are too many concepts to be mastered and it soon become overwhelming. I tried learning react but dropped it after spending a week when I still could not understand routing. Sense of cohesiveness between different concepts is missing. I believe some learning junkies may get the kick out of it but that's not me. My time is better spent elsewhere.
Angular on the other hand introduces everything one single tutorials[1] to make one productive. Deep dive later can be done later on when required.
[1] https://angular.io/tutorial
Edit: minor typo
Re: Explaining React's license
#154Facebook's license is no more dangerous than regular MIT or BSD-style licenses. If you are OK with using MIT or BSD licensed software you should be OK with using Facebook's BSD + Patents software. Here is why: MIT and BSD licenses don't have any patent grants, unlike the Apache 2.0 license. If you use MIT/BSD open source software, and some functionality of that software is patented by the author, you could be sued fo…
They have implicit patent grants while Facebook's does not. http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Implicit_patent_licence
Re: Explaining React's license
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow, that is pretty disingenuous. Clearly, BSD+Patents places some extra conditions on the BSD license, you don't have to be a lawyer to understand that. I mean, several people have provided the legal reasons elsewhere on this thread, but even the name "BSD PLUS Patents" should be a tip-off.
No, its not at all disingenuous. Facebook could have written the "Additional Grant of Patent Rights" (note: additional) to also terminate the copyright grant under the BSD license. But they did not: https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/PATENTS
Re: Explaining React's license
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would patiently beg everyone to employ some basic reasoning. Situation A: React is licensed under BSD + PATENTS. You sue Facebook for infringing your widget patent. Turns out Facebook has a patent for something in react. They revoke your grant and counter sue you for infringing that patent. Long legal battle ensues. Situation A: React is licensed under just BSD. You sue Facebook for infringing your widget patent. T…
People are worried about Situation C: React is licensed under BSD + PATENTS. You sue Facebook (or any corporate affiliate of theirs) for infringing on your widget patent. Facebook revokes your react license and counter sues you for copyright infringement. The patents clause doesn't have anything to do with any patents on parts of React. It's a way for Facebook to make it so that anyone who wants to sue them for paten…
"The license granted hereunder" refers to the patent license, not the copyright license.
Re: Explaining React's license
#157I love love love love love react as a technology, but this is just awful. I believe any developer not on Facebook's payroll still contributing to React or React native at this point has a moral obligation to stop. I personally feel like such a fool for not taking all this seriously before the ASF gave me a wakeup call. React is a trojan horse into the open source community that Facebook purposely and maliciously stee…
It's under MIT license developed by a single person in addition to community's contribution.
This link is rather interesting https://vuejs.org/v2/guide/comparison.html#React
Re: Explaining React's license
#158Facebook's license is no more dangerous than regular MIT or BSD-style licenses. If you are OK with using MIT or BSD licensed software you should be OK with using Facebook's BSD + Patents software. Here is why: MIT and BSD licenses don't have any patent grants, unlike the Apache 2.0 license. If you use MIT/BSD open source software, and some functionality of that software is patented by the author, you could be sued fo…
I've read it, and I'm pretty sure it says that if you initiate a patent lawsuit against Facebook, you lose the license to use React at all. It doesn't revert to BSD. (EDIT: Apparently that's wrong although the license could certainly be more clear about it.) If React doesn't implement any of their patents, the patent clause offers nothing extra. If it does, it would be damned nice to know which one(s) . Do other libr…
From Facebook's blog post:
> 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.
https://code.facebook.com/posts/112130496157735/explaining-r...
Re: Explaining React's license
#159A few things:
1. If you want to suggest you are doing this as part of an attempt to avoid meritless litigation, you really should give concrete examples of that happening. Otherwise, it comes off as a smoke screen.
2. The assertion is that if widely adopted, it would avoid lots of meritless litigation. This is a theoretically possible outcome. Here's another theoretically possible outcome of wide adoption of this kind of very broad termination language: Facebook is able to use other people's technology at will because nobody can afford to not use their stuff, and no startup that they decide to take technology from, and say "no more facebook/react/etc for you" could realistically launch an effective lawsuit before they died. Assume for a second you think Facebook is not likely to do this. If widely adopted, someone will do it. Nobody should have to worry about this possibility when considering whether to adopt particular open source software.
(there are other theoretical outcomes, good and bad).
It's also worth pointing out: None of this is a new discussion or argument. All of the current revisions of the major licenses (Apache v2, GPLv3) went through arguments about whether to use these kinds of broader termination clauses (though not quite as one sided and company focused), and ultimately decided not to, for (IMHO good) reasons. I'm a bit surprised this isn't mentioned or discussed anywhere.
These kinds of clauses are not a uniform net positive, they are fairly bimodal.
Re: Explaining React's license
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
You're missing the fact that if you sue Facebook for any patent infringement, even a legitimate one (say, you're the creator of some new hardware), Facebook will revoke your React license. Also, Facebook has no vdom patent. It's not like you can be granted a secret, hidden patent (even the word "patent" itself means "open").
Incorrect. (This has been clarified many times, including in Facebook's official FAQ about React licensing.)
> Also, Facebook has no vdom patent. It's not like you can be granted a secret, hidden patent (even the word "patent" itself means "open").
I agree. Many people have looked; no one has found one. Hence why I believe there's no risk to using React.