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

261–270 of 622 posts

Re: Explaining React's license

#261

Post by Lazare »

jbwyme wrote: post #235
Lazare wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The risk behind Preact isn't the API . Remember, this is a discussion about patents , so what matters is fundamental concepts and algorithms. The most likely thing for Facebook to patent is the concept of a virtual DOM that's diffed to apply updates to the real DOM. IF they have such a patent (and apparently they don't), then any library that has a vdom implementation infringes, including Preact. Of course, if they D…

I'm pretty sure that the concept (or implementation) of virtual dom wasn't invented as a part of React. IANAL but I don't think they could patent it. Ignoring specific optimizations, a virtual dom algorithm is fairly simple.

Correct, there is known prior art relating to vdoms, so any such patent would be fairly easy to defeat, IF it exists...and patents are public, and people have looked, and no such patent seems to exist.

The patent issue is really not a big deal with React; the real concern is philosophical.

Re: Explaining React's license

#262

Post by djsumdog »

kevinflo wrote: post #101

I 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…

I agree. I also wonder, does the Patents section apply in New Zealand? They banned software patents at a central government level.

Maybe we need groups who can push to lobby for legislation to remove software patents in more countries?

Re: Explaining React's license

#263

Post by Lazare »

JoshMnem wrote: post #205
Lazare wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. 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" it…

Do you mean this one? https://code.facebook.com/pages/850928938376556 It doesn't address the scenario of Facebook's violating your patents first.

The key phrase I was replying to was "Facebook will revoke your React license."

Facebook cannot revoke your React license in any circumstances, as that link makes clear.

Re: Explaining React's license

#264

Post by jlrubin »

Strom wrote: post #253
kevinflo wrote: post #101

I 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…

> 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've contributed to React before and will continue to do so. I haven't seen a single reason why not to. Just because React doesn't use your favorite license? Well this may shock you but I also use and help develop closed source software. In my view there is nothing morally wron…

> closed source

That's not really the problem here. The problem is that by using React, even in a closed source context, you are potentially setting yourself up to not successfully make an IP claim against facebook, even for unrelated technologies.

Re: Explaining React's license

#266

Post by Lazare »

kavok wrote: post #213
Lazare wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Using React just opens you up to liability, with no real benefit (other than using React). How? Again, if they have a patent, they can sue you if you use one of the alternatives mentioned. If they don't have a patent, they can't sue you if you use React. What's your thinking behind saying using React adds liability? Because to me, it looks like either it does nothing or it reduces liability.

The fact that we even have to have this discussion is a reason not to use it. I'd have to a hire a lawyer and disclose it to my investors to be cleared up. It would cost us money to validate because it does something different compared to any other similar project. My investors were very specific about software licenses - we aren't allowed to use GPLv4 or AGPL at all.

> I'd have to a hire a lawyer and disclose it to my investors to be cleared up

That seems extremely weird. Normal startups do nothing of the kind; do you have extremely weird investors?

> My investors were very specific about software licenses - we aren't allowed to use GPLv4 or AGPL at all.

Ah, there we go. First off, there's no such thing as GPLv4. Second of all, you do realise that avoiding even the AGPL puts you in a vanishingly rare crowd in these parts, right? Eg, MongoDB is AGPL; of all the reasons I've seen given for avoiding Mongo, the license is a new one on me.

If you've decided to only use GPLv2 or vanilla MIT licenses software that's totally fine, but it is unusual.

Re: Explaining React's license

#267

Post by kavok »

jaredklewis wrote: post #227
kavok wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If all situations are equal, why do they need the protection anyways? This is out of step with every other comparable library / framework / whatever.

What protection? The PATENTS takes rights away from Facebook, and gives rights to grantees. Facebook is in a stronger position without it. They added it to be nice. Without patents file: - Facebook can sue you for any reason, including react related patent infringement - You have no patent grant for anything in react - You can sue Facebook for anything, including patent infringement. With patents file: - Facebook can…

If the community is actively asking them to change it, then how is it being nice? At least offer a dual licensing scheme.

Re: Explaining React's license

#268

Post by [deleted] »

mzzter wrote: post #204
WalterSear wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

React doesn't do routing. It's a view library. And for me, the opposite was true vis-a-vis Angular and React, though got as far as making contributions to the Angular 2 tools before I decided to jumping ship.

That's the problem, it isn't intuitive at first as to how one should add routing when using React. I learned React-Router, but the API has changed a lot between versions in the past.

[deleted]

Re: Explaining React's license

#269

Post by geocar »

chrisco255 wrote: post #226
drieddust wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed and there is no reason to still stick with react when alternatives like vuejs and angular are available. 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 s…

React Router v4 is dead simple: https://medium.com/@pshrmn/a-simple-react-router-v4-tutorial... It's just React components up and down. Most of the concepts that you must learn with React have to do with understanding JavaScript. If you know JS, you know 80% of what you need to know.

It's also less capable and completely incompatible with router 3.

Re: Explaining React's license

#270

Post by arnarbi »

jlrubin wrote: post #264
Strom wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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've contributed to React before and will continue to do so. I haven't seen a single reason why not to. Just because React doesn't use your favorite license? Well this may shock you but I also use and help develop closed source software. In my view there is nothing morally wron…

> closed source That's not really the problem here. The problem is that by using React, even in a closed source context, you are potentially setting yourself up to not successfully make an IP claim against facebook, even for unrelated technologies.

I don't understand that last sentence, could you rephrase please?
Post reply on HN