431–440 of 528 posts
Wait, this doesn’t solve anything. They replaced BSD with MIT, which are basically the same license and then they removed any explicit patent grant. So this means the user is actually granted less rights then before. Am I missing something or does this make zero sense?
Yeah, that's why all the upheaval against the patents grant was so fucking stupid.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My less cynical view (hope) maybe react-native isn't due for an update soon and they'll do it next time there's a version bump?
You don't need to update anything else besides the license when changing the license, though? There's no version bump required.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only over the React patents. They could, however, sue you over your VR system or something but leave you little recourse due to not wanting to lose your React/other FB patent grants.
Nope. The PATENTS file specifically says that if Facebook initiates patent litigation (related or unrelated to React) you can counter sue Facebook AND keep your React patent grant. "...if Facebook or any of its subsidiaries or corporate affiliates files a lawsuit alleging patent infringement against you in the first instance, and you respond by filing a patent infringement counterclaim in that lawsuit against that pa…
Of this happens, it will be the major turning point of React + JSX "winning" the frontend world. Another one is tooling, but the recent typescript Compiler can do TSX natively (no webpack config etc required). The last one is size/performance, but afaik the guy behind inferno is now working on react, this all should union React's "forks" into a single force. Interesting times we live in, lets hope that facebook does…
I would just like to see people evaluate and decide whether to use it based on the actual technology, and not FUD.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, if they were equal grants, I would too. But they aren't, that's the point.
It's a principled stand for sure, and I can respect that, but it also means that in practice you get less protection. Like, I'd love to live in a world where patent protection wasn't even an issue but we don't. So in this situation we end up with less protection due to compatibility concerns. Given we do live in a world where software patents are valuable to companies and they won't all want to give blanket irrevocab…
Even if you believe the implicit grant to be weak, or Facebook's Patent grant to be better than an implicit grant, the above discussion stands independently of those things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that competition is generally good, but I hate choices so much. I don't even care if Vue is 10 times better than React, I've just spent the last year diving into React and React Native. I've finished 3 big projects and now I'm feeling more confident. And now I get the feeling that I have to throw out a whole bunch of experience and switch to the next big thing. I think I'm going to dig in my heels this time.…
> over a year of headaches and frustration Seems like an argument against the react ecosystem
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The way I'm reading it, if you develop free/open source software that infringes Red Hat's patents, Red Hat promises not to sue unless you sue them first. The "combined" part seems to be saying you can also develop a system that's partly proprietary, as long as the proprietary parts are simple and not using Red Hat's patents. If they sell a patent, the buyer must agree to the same promise. The promise won't protect yo…
> promises not to sue unless you sue them first Isn't that exactly the same as Facebook's license grant?
Facebook: You can use our software if we can use your patents.
That's my severely over-simplified interpretation. The most significant difference is that Red Hat's promise extends to FOSS in general, though apparently not proprietary software. Facebook's license applies only to specific Facebook FOSS code, but it can be used in proprietary software.