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

On React and WordPress

ma.tt

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 212 posts

Re: On React and WordPress

#151

Post by Flenser »

fiatjaf wrote: post #147
Flenser wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can patent the idea or algorithm that the code implements, so long as the code isn't old enough to be considered "prior art".

So all other frameworks that use the concept of virtual dom are also owned by React?

They can only be owned by their copyright holders, which is separate from patents.

If anyone had a patent on virtual dom / diffing, then they could sue anyone else that used an implementation that was implemented in the same way as the implementation in the patent. That doesn't then mean that they "own" those implementations, only that they can use the courts to stop others using them or pay to licence their patent.

Re: On React and WordPress

#152

Post by zachruss92 »

I understand why Matt came to this decision and ultimately agree with it. As someone who builds products based on WordPres for other companies, I can understand the concern. Imagine I build a site that uses WordPress 4.9 (or whatever release Gutenberg is will come out in) for a startup. Facebook legitimately copies a startup infringing on their patents (think about the Snapchat/Instagram feature battle), and the startup sues Facebook. They then have their react license revoked and can no longer use WordPress. The same thing applies with React native.

On the other hand, I do understand Facebooks reasoning. I'll definitely be watching this over time and hope that a legitimate solution will arise.

Re: On React and WordPress

#153

Post by pknight »

pluma wrote: post #115

People who ridicule the notion of FUD causing actual harm, pay attention: this is a perfect example of the chilling effects of FUD on software projects. Automattic didn't drop React because it doesn't like the license. Automattic dropped React because the FUD surrounding React's license might rub off on them (and WordPress). It's their right to do so and it's in the best interest of WordPress to avoid being dragged i…

A deeply arrogant and ignorant notion. If you think this was about FUD you really don't understand why people protest React as a core component inside WordPress. Most people are well aware that they are unlikely to get into any kind of legal dispute with Facebook or otherwise. Nor is it an issue that Facebook chooses to license React the way it wants. And the majority are against software patents.

Re: On React and WordPress

#154

Post by Flenser »

notacoward wrote: post #148
Flenser wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"a revocable grant can't be worse than no grant at all" an implied license that can't be terminated is better than a explicit license that can: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15051717

I think DannyBee is simply wrong that the explicit grant extinguishes the implicit one, and I've seen plenty of real lawyers agree. The copyright license and the patent license (LICENSE and PATENTS respectively) are separate contracts and even address separate areas of law. The legal principle involved here is that the permissions granted under LICENSE may not be unilaterally withdrawn except for reasons specified in…

Thanks for explaining your reasoning.

I think where you and DannyBee differ is with:

"permissions granted under LICENSE may not be unilaterally withdrawn except for reasons specified in that document itself"

where DannyBee is not taking the patent licence to be a permission that can be implicitly granted under LICENCE when there is a separate explicit PATENTS grant.

He states in the followup comment "No license can be implied if there is an explicit license." which I'm guessing you would say only applies if the explicit licence is within or allowed for by LICENCE.

Do you think that is that a fair representation of your points of view?

Re: On React and WordPress

#155

Post by pknight »

jeswin wrote: post #123
bodegajed wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comfort can hurt. Automattic is not comfortable with the Facebook license and you say it like it's a baseless FUD but even if they get a 1% chance of going to court against Facebook then they rather not take that risk of litigation anytime in the future. It's a business decision for the long term as rewriting doesn't cost that much for them.

So let's see. 1. Possibility of Automattic attacking FB with patents = 0%. (No issues here with React) 2. Possibility of FB attacking Automattic with patents (No issues here; Patent grant doesn't get revoked for countersuing). 3. Wordpress end users getting attacked by FaceBook (Again no issues here, grant doesn't get revoked for countersuing). 4. Wordpress end users planning to use software patents against FB - The…

> So basically, the FUD helped individuals/trolls/companies who want to wield software patents as a weapon; to the detriment of the wider community

This is just beyond ridiculous to characterize the FB patents addition as some sort of social good needed in the battle against patent litigation, like they are doing everyone a favour. The patents addition in the license is there to protect FB's interests. Words that specifically benefit the interests of a megacorp do not belong in an open source license meant to be used by everyone and anyone. It sets a terrible precedent that can be used to justify a whole range of different companies adding their own clauses, each of which that can be plausibly argued for. And all of that requires other companies to conduct legal counsel, altering which companies would be adopting WordPress - imposing a kind of decision making process and barrier that few if any in WP would or should desire. And it's not even worth it considering there are equally attractive alternatives out there.

Re: On React and WordPress

#156

Post by Flenser »

notacoward wrote: post #149
Flenser wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that the implicit licence couldn't be terminated if you sued Facebook: https://i.imgur.com/geUPyXl.png

> the implicit licence couldn't be terminated "Couldn't?" I think you just said the opposite of what you meant, and ended up being correct. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15257004 where I lay out the actual logic involved.

That's what I meant, although I did have a question mark on that in the image, so I was being confusing.

This is what had me questioning whether an implicit licence could be revoked: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15054849

Re: On React and WordPress

#157

Post by [deleted] »

mlsarecmg wrote: post #101
mplewis wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As other commenters have mentioned - if your project violates React patents, and you switch to Preact, it almost certainly continues to violate those same patents.

Vue is also based on React, it uses the same exact principles internally, although in a less concise and more complex way as it leans heavily in Angulars direction on the outside. All templates are either transpiled or evaluated into createElement-like functions, from then on it has a v-dom and works/diffs/renders/composes like React. This could "violate a react patent" according to you: const Test = () => createElem…

[deleted]

Re: On React and WordPress

#158

Post by trofflee »

notacoward wrote: post #149
Flenser wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that the implicit licence couldn't be terminated if you sued Facebook: https://i.imgur.com/geUPyXl.png

> the implicit licence couldn't be terminated "Couldn't?" I think you just said the opposite of what you meant, and ended up being correct. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15257004 where I lay out the actual logic involved.

Implicit patent license, the one assumed when your code is open sourced without an explicit patent agreement. The implicit license has no conditional termination clause where the explicit one does. The fear is not unreasonable.

Re: On React and WordPress

#159

Post by fiatjaf »

christophilus wrote: post #128
oneweekwonder wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> nobody has found any patents filed by Facebook that would actually cover any part of React, Somebody on /r/ posted this[0]. [0]: https://www.google.com/patents/US20170221242

And I responded with this (curious for informed feedback): I just read it. I can't believe this patent was granted. If I'm reading it correctly, it's a patent for an old trick used by every OS and video game ever made. Basically, don't redraw things that aren't in view, and only redraw the bits of things that are in view. Anyway, I can't see how this is applicable to React, as it really isn't how the v-dom works at a…

Thank you, you made me comprehend why all software patents are nonsense.

Re: On React and WordPress

#160

Post by rk06 »

pluma wrote: post #115

People who ridicule the notion of FUD causing actual harm, pay attention: this is a perfect example of the chilling effects of FUD on software projects. Automattic didn't drop React because it doesn't like the license. Automattic dropped React because the FUD surrounding React's license might rub off on them (and WordPress). It's their right to do so and it's in the best interest of WordPress to avoid being dragged i…

It was FUD before Apache Foundation placed React's license as Category X.

Now, it is not.

Post reply on HN