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

React Native and Yoga Both Given MIT Licence by Facebook

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 124 posts

Re: React Native and Yoga Both Given MIT Licence by Facebook

#11

Post by zapita »

zitterbewegung wrote: post #7
givehimagun wrote: post #2

Prediction - there will be a Harvard Business Review about Facebook's adventure with licensing. My unproven hypothesis is that they hurt their software's adoption rate because of their licensing. Personally, I believe MIT is correct. I had moved my company away from React when they had the licensing problems. To me, it feels like they are coming back to the community now.

Of course it hurt their software adoption rate. You have very public spats by wordpress and apache over this. Think of people who couldn't convince their boss to use react / react-native because the legal department saw that PATENTS file and said NO WAY. I think they are making these moves because they see that they are going to be in a weaker position in the future and need to open their grip on these projects to ma…

> Its probably too late though and people are moving off of it to the next javascript framework.

But is there a viable alternative with the same level of features and ecosystem momentum?

GraphQL and React Native, in particular, seem well positioned to dominate their respective niches. That gives React a big advantage, which might counteract the licensing issues, no?

Re: React Native and Yoga Both Given MIT Licence by Facebook

#14

Post by SiVal »

TL;DR: As far as I can tell, the news here is that Facebook is doing for React Native (& Yoga) what they recently did for React itself. In other words, in the past choosing React for crucial infrastructure put you in position where even if Facebook infringed on your IP, you could not sue them without losing the legal right to use React, potentially crippling your company. So, either use React and create an IP vulnerability with respect to Facebook or don't use React.

Facebook changed that licensing policy for React to a more common license. You could now sue Facebook over some IP issue without losing the right to use React. Facebook could still sue you, of course, but so could any other company. Using React no longer increased your vulnerability with respect to IP or lawsuits pertaining to Facebook.

But Facebook only removed the (claimed) vulnerability-causing license provision for React, leaving it in place for React Native.

And today, they are announcing its removal from React Native as well. Thank you, Facebook.

Re: React Native and Yoga Both Given MIT Licence by Facebook

#15

Post by mwcampbell »

zitterbewegung wrote: post #7
givehimagun wrote: post #2

Prediction - there will be a Harvard Business Review about Facebook's adventure with licensing. My unproven hypothesis is that they hurt their software's adoption rate because of their licensing. Personally, I believe MIT is correct. I had moved my company away from React when they had the licensing problems. To me, it feels like they are coming back to the community now.

Of course it hurt their software adoption rate. You have very public spats by wordpress and apache over this. Think of people who couldn't convince their boss to use react / react-native because the legal department saw that PATENTS file and said NO WAY. I think they are making these moves because they see that they are going to be in a weaker position in the future and need to open their grip on these projects to ma…

What's the next JavaScript framework for non-web mobile apps though?

Re: React Native and Yoga Both Given MIT Licence by Facebook

#17

Post by zitterbewegung »

zapita wrote: post #11
zitterbewegung wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it hurt their software adoption rate. You have very public spats by wordpress and apache over this. Think of people who couldn't convince their boss to use react / react-native because the legal department saw that PATENTS file and said NO WAY. I think they are making these moves because they see that they are going to be in a weaker position in the future and need to open their grip on these projects to ma…

> Its probably too late though and people are moving off of it to the next javascript framework. But is there a viable alternative with the same level of features and ecosystem momentum? GraphQL and React Native, in particular, seem well positioned to dominate their respective niches. That gives React a big advantage, which might counteract the licensing issues, no?

If that were true then why are they changing the licence at all?

They have tooling and are well positioned but what they need is big players to also back them so that people are more incentive to buy in. That is where moving the licence to MIT makes sense.

Re: React Native and Yoga Both Given MIT Licence by Facebook

#19

Post by ftoo »

SiVal wrote: post #14

TL;DR: As far as I can tell, the news here is that Facebook is doing for React Native (& Yoga) what they recently did for React itself. In other words, in the past choosing React for crucial infrastructure put you in position where even if Facebook infringed on your IP, you could not sue them without losing the legal right to use React, potentially crippling your company. So, either use React and create an IP vulnera…

That last paragraph is the very definition of Stockholm Syndrome.

Facebook is an $0.5T company built on open source. Without open source, Facebook would not have been possible.

Re: React Native and Yoga Both Given MIT Licence by Facebook

#20

Post by DannyBee »

dikaiosune wrote: post #4
milcron wrote: post #3

Wait, they're getting rid of the patents grant?

Some are of the opinion that MIT includes an implicit patent grant/license. Googling around I don't see many references to support this, but there are a few: * http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Implicit_patent_licence * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_License#Relation_to_Patents Regardless of armchair and/or professional legal opinions, I don't believe this has been tested in court in the US at least.

1. Actually, pretty much any serious patent licensing lawyer believes there is a grant (either explicit or implicit), because there is tons and tons and tons of caselaw on implicit patent grants (and the related principles of exhaustion), and while they don't include the word "software", the circumstances are otherwise identical. The others are mostly unable to admit it due to their client lists.

The number of lawyers i know who actually disagree in practice, and seriously believe it, is zero.

A significant number even believe there is an explicit grant. That's because MIT explicitly does not mention copyright, so it may not even need an implied license. it just says "to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so""

IE it says "whatever rights you need to use, copy, modify, blah blah blah, you get those".

Other licenses explicitly identify copyright rights, etc. You'd be super hard-pressed to argue this is trying to talk about only copyright (meaning it's not even an implicit grant, but an explicit one).

2. As mentioned, it has been well tested in pretty much every other respect, just not for free software.

IE people giving stuff away, even under licensing agreements, even for free other things, other things under free for use license grants, etc

Like you can't actually find a case that doesn't find an implied license in the standard MIT license kind of circumstances.

That said, implied licenses do suck, and are limited in various ways.

Post reply on HN