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

591–600 of 622 posts

Re: Explaining React's license

#591

Post by TimTheTinker »

fhrow4484 wrote: post #171
DannyBee wrote: post #159

So, i feel for them, having watched Google's open source projects be targeted by patent trolls in the past. But i really don't think this is the way forward. A few things: 1. If you want to suggest you are doing this as part of an attempt to avoid meritless litigation, you really should give concrete examples of that happening. Otherwise, it comes off as a smoke screen. 2. The assertion is that if widely adopted, it…

That's a good point, especially since the concrete examples won't possibly be about patent trolls. Why would patent trolls (aka Non practicing entities) care about loosing rights "to make, have made, use, sell, offer to sell, import, and otherwise transfer the [React] Software". (as defined in https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/b8ba8c83f318b84e42933... )?

Excellent point about NPEs (patent trolls). I think this comment gets to the absolute heart of the matter more than any other that I've seen.

Re: Explaining React's license

#592

Post by TimTheTinker »

yoz-y wrote: post #389
chrisco255 wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The clause states you only lose the patent rights if YOU sue Facebook for patent infringement (and only for patent infringement, not other reasons). As pointed out by Dennis Walsh in ( https://medium.com/@dwalsh.sdlr/react-facebook-and-the-revok... ), it would take millions to bring a patent suit against Facebook.

This is something I have yet to understand. From all I read about the patent situation in America it looks like they are totally worthless unless you are a multi million company. Is there actually no way of pursuing a giant if they infringe on your IP?

For the most part, yes, unless you're a non-practicing entity (patent troll).

Large companies carry massive war chests of patents, such that anyone who makes software is most likely violating several of them without knowing it. They defend themselves from patent lawsuits with countersuits from their war chests. (Trolls are immune, though, because they don't make software and therefore aren't infringing in the first place.)

Re: Explaining React's license

#593

Post by thecrazyone »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #584
jnbiche wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you. You pretty eloquently summed up my thoughts about this entire situation. I'm sad, because Facebook runs some pretty cool open source projects. But I will no longer contribute to them if this is their attitude. It's about as far from community-oriented as I can imagine.

FB would be happy to replace the internet with Facebook. I think we've all known this for some time now. It's not their attitude, it's their entire reason for being. It's a form of totalitarianism that we don't have a word for; that's beyond most people's imagination. It would be fitting for FB to change their motto (?) to "We're not evil either." Lol

Good joke there :)

Do you believe Google also has shown intents to be totalitarian or "be evil" ?

IMHO Google has handled their enormous power and popularity very well.

Fair Disclaimer: I must confess I'm a google user, not affiliated to them in any other way (that I know of) though :D

Re: Explaining React's license

#594

Post by thecrazyone »

shams93 wrote: post #294
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

Yeah my current gig is steering clear of react because of the patent issue but we are embracing Vue and vuex.

why is angular not even being considered? Has it suddenly become radio active that no one wants to touch it even?

Re: Explaining React's license

#595

Post by thecrazyone »

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.

Why not Angular?

It's conspicuously missing from these discussions

Re: Explaining React's license

#596

Post by thecrazyone »

geocar wrote: post #482
chrisco255 wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hadn't heard that it was less capable. But you can always keep using v3 if that's what you know. He seemed to indicate that it took him a week to figure out routing in React. I have never had that much trouble.

> He seemed to indicate that it took him a week to figure out routing in React. I have never had that much trouble. When you haven't had "that much trouble", it sounds like you're calling them stupid or a liar, and it sounds like you didn't consider the possibility that you're working on a very different problem or have a different definition of "figure out routing". I store all of my user state in the URL. This way…

Is there are reason you're not considering angular?

I feel like I'm missing something big with everyone not even talking about angular. Maybe I feel this because Angular was big and then soon it wasn't. Probably that's the disconnect

Re: Explaining React's license

#597

Post by thecrazyone »

arvinsim wrote: post #404
drieddust wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> React doesn't do routing. It's a view library. and that's the problem. React itself solves a tiny subset and delegates the other responsibilities to different tools which may not align with each other. Most of the is spent is wiring making different choices and wiring them together. On a side note what made you move away from Angular 2 to React?

> and that's the problem. React itself solves a tiny subset and delegates the other responsibilities to different tools which may not align with each other. Most of the is spent is wiring making different choices and wiring them together. So modularity is a problem now?

well there is modularity and then there's keeping frequently used things together. I think react push modularity at the cost of productivity (opinion).

It's like breaking a kitchen knife into two: the blade and the handle, in the name of modularity.

Concretely, this is what I mean: Routing, and a bunch of other things are used together, it would've been better if react had kept the view library separate but also maintained an official router among other things

Re: Explaining React's license

#598

Post by thecrazyone »

tmat wrote: post #387
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…

Angular is nothing like React. It's garbage in comparison.

I'm not getting the angular hate. Would you want to explain why?

Re: Explaining React's license

#599

Post by thecrazyone »

rmc wrote: post #580
Strom wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not being able to sue with patents is not something I give much value to. Software patents aren't even valid where I live and operate. They concern me only as far as USA has the will to have a global jurisdiction. However if Facebook wants to sue me for something ridiculous and has the USA government's global help, then Apache 2.0 license isn't going to save me, they will find something else.

Is it limited to software patents? e.g. if BMW uses React in a project, and FB has a patent which covers React, then I think FB can use all of BMW's patents without paying, and BMW either has a choice of changing away from React, or not suing FB. Could be helpful if FB wants to do something with cars.

IANAL wait is this true?

The way I understood this conversation was that BMW (continuing your example) cannot sue facebook if facebook infringes them on an of their car patents but it's not a right or a grant or even a license of any sort.

Re: Explaining React's license

#600

Post by thecrazyone »

patrickaljord wrote: post #439
mundanevoice wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you develop a patent worth a billion dollar that Facebook wants to steal, you will probably be ok too.

"worth billion dollars" is not the same as "have billion dollars". FB is both worth and have multiple billion dollars. Does this make sense to you?
Post reply on HN