Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Startups should not use React

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 176 posts

Re: Startups should not use React

#131

Post by web007 »

raulk wrote: post #70
cbhl wrote: post #9

It's worth noting this "you can't sue us for violating your patents if you use our non-free open source software" is working as designed. Facebook claims that if every company adopted a React-like license, that software patents as we know it would basically die. It's worth noting that both Google and Facebook's patent lawyers are generally of the opinion that software patents are net bad, but differ in their opinions…

If Facebook's approach is so great, by introducing a legal provision in the OSS license, how come it has not been adopted by any other company except for Palantir, despite being introduced in 2014? I analysed 75+ OSS projects from 35 companies, and Facebook is practically alone. https://medium.com/@raulk/list-of-companies-and-popular-proj...

I commented elsewhere on this, but how about CDDL? IANAL but it seems to do the same thing, patent poison pill in the event of suit.

Re: Startups should not use React

#132

Post by franciscop »

mhw wrote: post #129
franciscop wrote: post #117

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…

I don't disagree with your general point, but I don't think we can ascribe a singular objective to Facebook as an entire organisation. 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 o…

Sure, I totally agree. What I tried to express is that there is probably a hiring and brand push as well for keeping React Open Source, not that it is the only one.

Re: Startups should not use React

#133

Post by pluma »

thepompano wrote: post #112
pluma wrote: post #109

Aside from the validity of the article's claims about patents (see my other tirades about that) I'm not sure the point even makes sense. React, the library, is at its core a glorified templating system. It provides plenty of escape hatches that make migration as well as inclusion of foreign UI components and libraries a breeze. It's stupidly simple to migrate away from. If you are a high valuation startup looking to…

Just throwing this out there - replacing an entire front-end monolith framework in large part depends on the size/scale of the application, and how well it was implemented to begin with.

Okay, so maybe the recommendation should be "build your app around the assumption you may have to swap individual dependencies out in the future".

Amazingly enough, this recommendation is also beneficial if it turns out there are patents covering Angular, Vue or Ember.

Re: Startups should not use React

#134

Post by romanovcode »

pluma wrote: post #87

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…

Take your own advice

Re: Startups should not use React

#135

Post by Vinnl »

CityWanderer wrote: post #94
Vinnl wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a lawyer, but I can imagine it can be expected that you do some due diligence before installing it through npm - like checking the website whether their license allows you to use it, and on what terms.

If what you say is true then I think our tool chains are failing us. My React project has 1,015 dependencies (directories in node_modules). If I didn't have locked versions then every minor automatic update could bring in more dependencies without me knowing. Can anyone honestly say they've done such due diligence?

I agree that that would probably fall into the same category as saying that you've read the terms and conditions.

That said, the amount of dependencies you have locally installed is likely to be a multitude of the number you'd get if you'd exclude devDependencies, which I'm guessing don't count.

Re: Startups should not use React

#136

Post by kalefranz »

pluma wrote: post #87

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 BSD + Patents license doesn't imply anything about Facebook's own patents. React may not itself have any patents; that's not the point. The patents involved here are those not owned by Facebook. Facebook doesn't need patents on React to revoke your license to use React if you sue Facebook for patent infringement.

Edit: I see how my reading was wrong. The LICENSE file is still the same old 3-Clause BSD. The PATENTS file is what's new and different.

Re: Startups should not use React

#137

Post by EdwardMSmith »

kalefranz wrote: post #136
pluma wrote: post #87

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 BSD + Patents license doesn't imply anything about Facebook's own patents. React may not itself have any patents; that's not the point. The patents involved here are those not owned by Facebook. Facebook doesn't need patents on React to revoke your license to use React if you sue Facebook for patent infringement. Edit: I see how my reading was wrong. The LICENSE file is still the same old 3-Clause BSD. The PATENT…

It is EXACTLY the point, as the only thing that gets revoked is the patent grant - not the software license.

Re: Startups should not use React

#138

Post by zwily »

EdwardMSmith wrote: post #137
kalefranz wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The BSD + Patents license doesn't imply anything about Facebook's own patents. React may not itself have any patents; that's not the point. The patents involved here are those not owned by Facebook. Facebook doesn't need patents on React to revoke your license to use React if you sue Facebook for patent infringement. Edit: I see how my reading was wrong. The LICENSE file is still the same old 3-Clause BSD. The PATENT…

It is EXACTLY the point, as the only thing that gets revoked is the patent grant - not the software license.

That point is even clarified by the Facebook FAQ on the license, but it still seems to confuse most people.

Re: Startups should not use React

#139

Post by raulk »

pluma wrote: post #87

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…

Your argument is simply supporting my thesis.

1) I am not a lawyer, and my article simply analyses the compromises a company makes when adopting React (and other OSS projects licensed under the same terms), without going into Patent Law.

Some lawyers think that the patent-related legal provisions are not enforceable anyway, but then it begs to ask the question. If they are not enforceable, why is Facebook so adamant about keeping this license model? Surely there's something else behind this, some motivation.

2) Facebook claims their motivation is reducing patent litigation. And they claim that making this model widespread would benefit the entire industry.

Let's put that in context. They adopted this license in 2014 and, in the last 3 years, no other company aside from Palantir has followed suit.

I analysed 75+ projects from 35 companies (link: [1]), and none uses this license model. What's going on?

As I argue in my article, this kind of license may hurt the Open Source industry, more than it will benefit it.

3) No, I do not know (a) what applicable patents FB holds with regards to React, nor (b) those that may be in the works, nor (c) those they intend to apply for. Likely neither do you.

And that's the whole point of the article.

Most people and startups don't have access to an expert patent lawyer. Even if they did, would it be a good use of resources to engage them to evaluate the adoption of a frontend UI layer? No.

So just stay away of problematic stuff.

4) And as a result of the above, my stance is that I prefer to use a stack that grants me any patents unconditionally, or maybe with weak patent retaliation like the ASLv2 license, that's OK, i.e. I sue the holder over patents covering only the work I am using, I lose the patent grant for the work I'm using. Simple and symmetrical

5) Here's some food for thought. Would you rather relinquish your IP assertion rights with this "BSD-3 + strong patent retaliation" model, or would you rather pay $99/dev for a commercial license on React and not give Facebook any control?

6) Facebook exists thanks to Open Source. Zuck implemented it using the LAMP stack back in 2004. Would he have used LAMP if it entailed relinquishing any rights to initiate patent litigation?

---

As I said, I am not giving people legal advise, I'm just voicing out my opinion. But I do see a lot of React fans like you (based on your Github [2]) trying to diminish the arguments appealing to lack of authority and what not, without understanding the logic behind my argument.

Picking an OSS UI view layer should not require involving your legal advisors, don't you think?

[1] https://medium.com/@raulk/list-of-companies-and-popular-proj... [2] https://github.com/pluma

EDIT: added point 6.

Re: Startups should not use React

#140

Post by leshow »

tchaffee wrote: post #111
matthewmacleod wrote: post #69

FUD, FUD, FUD. Pure FUD. There are, AFAIK, no known patents on React. This means you can go ahead and sue Facebook for patent violations to your heart's content. The license they granted to you to use any of their patents applied to React (of which there are none) is terminated, and you can merrily continue using React. If this is incorrect, and Facebook actually do hold patents on React, then all of the popular alte…

> AFAIK Should I tell that to my investors? That AFA matthewmacleod on HN knows, we are good? > then all of the popular alternatives almost certainly infringe on them as well. But the lawsuit would be against those alternatives directly and not my company? I'm not sure about this, but I'm not also sure why we should be taking advice about this issue from non-experts.

You could easily use this argument against the writer of the original blog post. "Someone wrote a blog post saying React's license is bad"
Post reply on HN