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

511–520 of 622 posts

Re: Explaining React's license

#511

Post by rhizome »

gstein67 wrote: post #142
rhizome wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way I read it, ASF denied FB's BSD+Patents license in a mysterious bureaucratic decision that will cause a lot of pain for companies that use React, while FB's decision to create the BSD+Patents license was an altruistic move designed to benefit the software ecosystem and reduce their patent litigation overhead. I believe FB is at the "pounding on the table" stage.

The ASF does not want downstream users to be caught by more restrictions than those of the ALv2. The BSD+Patents licensing imposes more restrictions; thus, Apache projects cannot depend upon software under that license. This is pretty clear, and the ASF has been operating under this "no more restrictive than the Apache license" since its origin.

I know, I was satirizing the tone of FB's post, where ASF are weird meanies and FB is just trying to give everybody sunshine and lollipops.

Re: Explaining React's license

#512

Post by gedy »

bpicolo wrote: post #421
gedy wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 : (

We saw no problems with Mocha & Enzyme, can't comment on Jest.

Re: Explaining React's license

#513

Post by pdfernhout »

CodeWriter23 wrote: post #344
antoncohen wrote: post #129

Facebook'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…

> Now if you turn around and use the author for patent infringement for something else, you lose the patent grant that came with the software, and you are back to a normal plain old BSD license. Um, no. Let's say you own patent A and Facebook has granted you rights to patents B and C. Then let's say Facebook infringes your patent A and you sue them. You lose the license to use patents B and C. That's what the PATENTS…

From a lawyer: https://www.elcaminolegal.com/single-post/2016/10/04/Faceboo... "True, the BSD License does not explicitly state that the licensee receives the right to use the licensed software under the licensor’s patents.* But I’ve never heard any lawyer postulate that that document does not grant a license to fully exploit the licensed software under all of the licensor’s intellectual property. Anyone who pushes that view is thinking too hard."

Re: Explaining React's license

#514

Post by falcolas »

Lazare wrote: post #468
falcolas wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have it backwards. If you have a patent, and use React, you can't sue Facebook if they use your patent.

> If you have a patent, and use React, you can't sue Facebook if they use your patent. Citation needed. Let's say I have an awesome VR patent, and a React based website. I find out the Oculus violated my patent, what happens next? Answer: I sue them. :) Nothing about the React license stops this; I will even still have a right to use React. What I won't have is a right to use any patents that Facebook might have on R…

From reacts/PATENTS

> The license granted hereunder will terminate, automatically and without notice, if you [...] initiate [...] any Patent Assertion

The key part is that if you don't have a license to use the patented technology (or more pertinently - that license is explicitly revoked), you can't legally use that technology, no matter what the BSD license might say: the patent grants supersedes the BSD license.

So, to respond directly to your answer - you lose the right to use React; Facebook can sue you for your use of React, since they own the patents to that technology.

So if you want to operate under the belief that Facebook has no patents to assert, then yes, you will consider yourself to be safe. The fact is that many lawyers, including the Apache Foundations lawyers, disagree with this assertion.

Re: Explaining React's license

#515

Post by bdcravens »

tmat wrote: post #384
shams93 wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me it has the advantage that jQuery had, the product if a single developer with a huge community behind him but no large company imposing their agenda on the framework.

React isn't even a framework.

When most people talk about React, they aren't talking the single library, but rather, the ecosystem of libraries that enable you to build applications. Most "frameworks" are just a collection of libraries too - the difference is in branding, and most frameworks are really just a pre-built package.json/Gemfile/etc.

I'd venture to say that very few if any of the sites Facebook lists at https://github.com/facebook/react/wiki/sites-using-react are using "React the view library" by itself.

Re: Explaining React's license

#516

Post by prewett »

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…

> any developer contributing ... has a moral obligation to stop

Oh, come off it!

If you went to some company and got a patent license, and then proceeded to sue that company for patent infringement on an unrelated patent, they would terminate your license. (That's what cross licensing prevents.) So FB is granting React users a patent license free. Why wouldn't they revoke the license if you were suing them? There's no difference from the normal state of affairs except the patent license is free. Now, if you are worried about FB infringing on your patents, it's wisest not to use React, but that's no different than licensing a patent from someone else.

Re: Explaining React's license

#517

Post by falcolas »

jaredklewis wrote: post #472
falcolas wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have it backwards. If you have a patent, and use React, you can't sue Facebook if they use your patent.

But you can still sue Facebook. Nowhere does the PATENTS file require grantees to waive their right to sue. But if you do sue, Facebook gains the right to counter-sue you with any react related patents. I.e. the exact situation you would be in if you sued Facebook and there was no PATENTS file.

Not quite - if there was no patents file, the BSD license would have a implied grant associated with it which would not be revoked by the lawsuit.

The "implied" license doesn't have a strong legal finding backing it up yet. Even so, most lawyers are comfortable with the idea that if a company tells other people to freely use their software, they can't then come back around and sue those same people.

Re: Explaining React's license

#518

Post by donpinkus »

So, can I use React as my company's front end framework or not?

If I do use React, what is the specific legal risk (if any)?

PLEASE no emotionally charged comments - I just want a clear answer from someone who deeply understands the legal stuff.

Re: Explaining React's license

#519

Post by gramstrong »

boubiyeah wrote: post #398
kenning wrote: post #394

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using polymer as a JS frontend framework wasted about a year of work at my friend's company. They eventually switched to react for one project and an in-house react replacement for the other.

google is pretty bad at frontend frameworks from my experience :D Polymer is an experiment that should have stayed in that state.

I'd argue that google is pretty strong when it comes to frameworks, and that most of their criticism comes from people who aren't looking for a framework, but rather a library (like React).

And Polymer isn't even really either of those things, it's a polyfill for a native browser feature.

Re: Explaining React's license

#520

Post by gramstrong »

donpinkus wrote: post #518

So, can I use React as my company's front end framework or not? If I do use React, what is the specific legal risk (if any)? PLEASE no emotionally charged comments - I just want a clear answer from someone who deeply understands the legal stuff.

You most likely certainly can with nothing to worry about. 99.99% of the world's developers will never need to sue Facebook for patent infringement. That is, unless Facebook begins reverse patent-trolling. But I see it as more of a decision on ethics at this point in time, and don't really see any reason to feel particularly threatened.
Post reply on HN