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

421–430 of 622 posts

Re: Explaining React's license

#421

Post by bpicolo »

gedy wrote: post #236
WalterSear wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could anyone with experience porting from one to the other let us know how it went?

For many codebases, Preact can be use simple as: npm i -S preact preact-compat then add this to webpack config: { "resolve": { "alias": { "react": "preact-compat", "react-dom": "preact-compat" } } } https://preactjs.com/guide/switching-to-preact

The tricky part is probably testing. I don't think e.g. jest (or maybe it was enzyme?) supports alternative implementations quite yet, though they were working on it...that was true months ago though.

If you're starting from scratch pretty easy though, sure. But that assumption is all too widespread in the JS ecosystem these days : (

Re: Explaining React's license

#422

Post by tgb »

unkown-unknowns wrote: post #292
stephen82 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I planned to learn more about React, but reading now this convinced me to learn Vue.js instead. 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

Alternatively there's this: https://github.com/developit/preact Preact is a fast 3kB alternative to React, with the same ES2015 API as that of React. Preact is MIT licensed and does not have any additional conditions beyond that.

Sorry I've forgotten what the status was on the "are APIs copyrightable" question, i.e. the Oracle v Google fight. I'm kind of confused about what wikipedia says happened - there seem to be two final rulings one in favor of Oracle and one in favor of Google with Oracle appealing the second. Is it that APIs are copyrightable but duplicating them is (sometimes?) covered under fair use? Either way, I'd be a little hesitant to use this.

Re: Explaining React's license

#423

Post by mundanevoice »

patrickaljord wrote: post #363
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…

Here's a list of companies using React: - Microsoft - Uber - Yahoo Mail - Dropbox - Airbnb - Netflix - NY Times If they're ok with the license, you probably shouldn't worry too much. Basically, if you don't own any patents or if your company is smaller than any of the above, you should be ok.

This is a very dangerous follower mentality. You and I are not in the league of these big companies. If FB sues them they have deep enough pockets to fight back. But we, we would just vanish into thin air.

Re: Explaining React's license

#424

Post by raulk »

jfaucett wrote: post #379
unkown-unknowns wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alternatively there's this: https://github.com/developit/preact Preact is a fast 3kB alternative to React, with the same ES2015 API as that of React. Preact is MIT licensed and does not have any additional conditions beyond that.

Yes, preact looks like a good drop-in replacement. The good thing about the MIT license is you know what you are getting. I also agree with the OP, even viewing FB in the best light possible, about the best case you can make is that they want to hedge any risks to themselves while profiting from OSS contributions and the OSS marketing. As it stands, there is virtually no case to be made for them wanting to contribute…

As I said in my article [1]:

Patents protect ideas and inventions. In most cases, patent assertion cases are not black or white — win or loose. Infringement evaluation is complex and costly. A lawsuit can cost hundreds of thousands or millions to file and pursue. You might have a 85% confidence that FB violated a patent of yours, but to even pursue it it’s going to cost you a lot of money.

If on top of that, you will need to invest to migrate away onto a different frontend framework first, and make sure that all your customers are using your new product version (what if you’re using React Native? your users may not upgrade the apps at once!), before you can even file the lawsuit, do you think that’s an honest, ethical usage of open source philosophy?

Bottom line: Open Source is not a “quid pro quo” trade. Open Source is about creating communities to build better software together. It should never be used as a marketplace to exchange people's rights.

[1] https://medium.com/consensusx/if-youre-a-startup-you-should-...

Re: Explaining React's license

#425

Post by etimberg »

jondubois wrote: post #385
stephen82 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I planned to learn more about React, but reading now this convinced me to learn Vue.js instead. 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

Or there is Google's Polymer framework. In my opinion, Polymer is better than React and Vue. I could never bring myself to use React because of its liense terms.

The downside of polymer is that it doesn't really play nicely with modern toolchains.

Re: Explaining React's license

#426

Post by Lazare »

jnbiche wrote: post #401
Lazare wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's simply false. It cannot happen . How many times does this need to be explained? It's been discussed a ton, the plain language of the license makes that clear, Facebook even covered this in their official React license FAQ ( https://code.facebook.com/pages/850928938376556 ). Please stop spreading FUD.

Is this is true, then why the hell is Facebook digging in like this? They're going to ruin their hard-earned open source creds for very little gain.

Probably because they don't care. They created React to solve a problem they had, they open sourced it 'cause why not, some people adopted it, some people didn't...Facebook doesn't care either way. They're not an open source company, and they don't really care how many startups use React, or how many Github stars they+ have. They don't rely on external users for testing, or external devs for contributions.

It's not so much they're "digging in" in the face of criticism, as they simply haven't noticed the criticism, because it has no relevance to Facebook at the level where corporate policy is set. Or so I believe. :)

Re: Explaining React's license

#427

Post by joatmon-snoo »

tgb wrote: post #422
unkown-unknowns wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alternatively there's this: https://github.com/developit/preact Preact is a fast 3kB alternative to React, with the same ES2015 API as that of React. Preact is MIT licensed and does not have any additional conditions beyond that.

Sorry I've forgotten what the status was on the "are APIs copyrightable" question, i.e. the Oracle v Google fight. I'm kind of confused about what wikipedia says happened - there seem to be two final rulings one in favor of Oracle and one in favor of Google with Oracle appealing the second. Is it that APIs are copyrightable but duplicating them is (sometimes?) covered under fair use? Either way, I'd be a little hesit…

You are correct. (For the unfamiliar, there are separate rulings because in this case, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that APIs are copyrightable, then remanded back to the district court to re-try the case in light of the new decision about copyrightability, which then found that reimplementation of the API was covered under fair use.)

Re: Explaining React's license

#428

Post by Lazare »

koolba wrote: post #405
Lazare wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's simply false. It cannot happen . How many times does this need to be explained? It's been discussed a ton, the plain language of the license makes that clear, Facebook even covered this in their official React license FAQ ( https://code.facebook.com/pages/850928938376556 ). Please stop spreading FUD.

From the linked FAQ: >> Does the additional patent grant in the Facebook BSD+Patents license terminate if I sue Facebook for something other than patent infringement? > No. >> Does the additional patent grant in the Facebook BSD+Patents license terminate if Facebook sues me for patent infringement first, and then I respond with a patent counterclaim against Facebook? > No, unless your patent counterclaim is related t…

> immediately sue me for infringement.

Of what? Patents are public; link me the patent you think they'd sue you for infringing. :)

Re: Explaining React's license

#429

Post by markyuckerberg »

coldtea wrote: post #351
markyuckerberg wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Welcome to the "folks who miss the forest for the trees" club.

Welcome to the over-reaction party. 3 years from now, most startups and companies will still be using React as they did for the last 5 years that the same terms held.

>> Welcome to the over-reaction party

Hmmm.. in that case the people who actually need this advice even more would be the maintainers of ZSTD who seem to have hastily changed the license after seeing the backlash from the Apache policy change. Care to stand by this opinion and leave your comment on the thread which discusses the license change over on GitHub?

https://github.com/facebook/zstd/issues/775

Re: Explaining React's license

#430

Post by neospice »

nojvek wrote: post #148
joobus wrote: post #52

The Facebook patents license, https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/PATENTS , says: > The license granted hereunder will terminate, automatically and without notice, if you (or any of your subsidiaries, corporate affiliates or agents) initiate directly or indirectly, or take a direct financial interest in, any Patent Assertion: ... (ii) against any party if such Patent Assertion arises in whole or in part fro…

If Snapchat used React, Facebook would kill them to death because Snapchat couldn’t do much. They already mass copied snapchat’s Features. Any sane aspiring developer would know not to give Facebook that much power.

Is SNAP pursuing litigation in retaliation to this?

If not, then would it have mattered if they used React?

Post reply on HN