121–130 of 176 posts
It truly seems non-mature businesses should stop relying on open-source with "baggage" and utilize only free software (AGPL3+) that has dual-licensing for commercial use with support as e.g. in Qt, unless you are 100% sure for your product lifecycle you won't get into direct business collision with the "baggage" author.
Businesses should shun AGPL, period.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Nerds shouldn't write opinion pieces about subject domains they don't understand. Following your words, you should not be even allowed to comment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority Seriously, stop this.
Argument "I know X" is different than "I don't know X and neither do you".
There were a lot of people in the older thread about the patents stuff saying things like "well, are you ever going to sue Facebook?? You don't need to worry about the patents stuff". But consider this: Facebook do something disastrous, like leak a bunch of private or financial data and it affects you really badly. There's a class action against Facebook. Now you can't join it, because you don't wanna rewrite your ap…
Nerds shouldn't write opinion pieces about subject domains they don't understand. Seriously, stop this. Sometimes you just need to admit you have no idea what you're talking about and shut up. The author honestly thinks using Preact or Inferno could protect them from patent lawsuits. Oh, wait, maybe "Facebook holds any software patents on the Virtual DOM or the React APIs" so better use Vue and Cycle. Unless you actu…
> 1) which patents Facebook holds and > 2) which patents are relevant to each framework/library (i.e. React and various its alternatives) Facebook needs to come out and give us these answers. There are two scenarios: 1) They have "secret" patents, and the reason they hoard them is to use them as offense when being sued, forcing the suing party (whether "meritless" or meritful) significant monetary loss to rewrite the…
Nerds shouldn't write opinion pieces about subject domains they don't understand. Seriously, stop this. Sometimes you just need to admit you have no idea what you're talking about and shut up. The author honestly thinks using Preact or Inferno could protect them from patent lawsuits. Oh, wait, maybe "Facebook holds any software patents on the Virtual DOM or the React APIs" so better use Vue and Cycle. Unless you actu…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's an idea: if you intend to lock people into a technology so you can sue them later, would you a) build a small library that encourages modular code, has tons of escape hatches to use other libraries and has so few concepts it actually encourages learning the language and solving problems outside the library instead? Or b) build a large monolith that comes with dozens of idiosyncratic concepts and its own way to…
Probably why I'm still using Backbone - and actively pondering other options!
Or any other part of your applications?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From what I understood, It is not a patent on React. As far as I can tell nothing about React is patented... and that is not the discussion over the past few days has been about. This whole shebang has nothing to do with React itself, or the "technology" that React uses or anything, but more about the way many FB's open source libraries are licensed, one of which is React. The license specify that you are free to use…
> That means, if you use React, and you happen to own a patent for something that FB utilises, you can't sue FB without losing your React license. Correction: Without losing your license to use any patents on React. Which... > As far as I can tell nothing about React is patented... I agree. Which means the entire issue is a huge paper tiger; you lose your right to use something that doesn't seem to exist.
I'm neither a native English speaker nor a lawyer to really understand the wording in the legalese, or if it only cover software patent or patents in general, but I think that clause is pretty broad.
Nerds shouldn't write opinion pieces about subject domains they don't understand. Seriously, stop this. Sometimes you just need to admit you have no idea what you're talking about and shut up. The author honestly thinks using Preact or Inferno could protect them from patent lawsuits. Oh, wait, maybe "Facebook holds any software patents on the Virtual DOM or the React APIs" so better use Vue and Cycle. Unless you actu…
The author is making assumptions about what Open Source is and what should or shouldn't be. While many developers would like Open Source to be about "creating communities to build better software together" (myself included), open source just means that everyone can read the code. Different developers and companies might use Open Source for different reason, included but not limited to: reduce Q&A, brand relevance, in…
It was quite clear from the discussion around the recent github issue asking them to consider relicensing that there are many parties internal to Facebook with a say in the decision, and it's unlikely they all agree on everything. The React developer's motives for releasing React as open source are probably more along the lines of "creating communities to build better software together", and there are obviously others within Facebook who are motivated by protecting Facebook from lawsuits. What we see on the outside is the resulting compromise. See Dan Abramov's comments in the issue, particularly [1] & [2]
1: https://github.com/facebook/react/issues/10191#issuecomment-... 2: https://github.com/facebook/react/issues/10191#issuecomment-...
There was a time when React was Apache v2! https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/3bbed150ab58a07b0c4fa... shows that license. Has anyone seriously explored forking React from the last Apache v2 version?
If they published React under Apache v2 at one point in time, how can they later re-release under a new license and claim patent rights on it then? Since, assuming whatever patents they own covered this version of React as well...wouldn't that be considered prior art?