Facebook React.js License • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook React.js License

#101

Post by daenney » Wed, Oct 12, 2016, 5:02 PM UTC

webwalker wrote: post #36

TAForObvReasons wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft is not necessarily a paragon of open source, but many of their open source projects use unadulterated OS licenses. Typescript is Apache 2: https://github.com/Microsoft/TypeScript/blob/master/LICENSE.... Visual Studio Code is MIT: https://github.com/Microsoft/vscode/blob/master/LICENSE.txt

You will notice that most new projects all use MIT. Apache 2 hasn't been used for anything new in the last year+.

Just about every Puppet module is published as Apache 2, it's the go to license in our ecosystem.

Re: Facebook React.js License

#102

Post by talmand » Wed, Oct 12, 2016, 5:06 PM UTC

Twirrim wrote: post #82

Unrelated to the actual content of the page.. but why does this site require 1.25Mb of javascript to load? It makes up nearly 70% of the entire page, and is responsible for almost 60% of the requests needed to render the page. Do you really need to use that much javascript just to render a blog post. Why? Those webfonts also took multiple seconds to retrieve leaving the page essentially completely blank to visitors u…

Because it's a basic site with a handful of pages with a blog that is built as a single page app. All the HTML of the page is generated by Javascript and dumped into the lone div inside the body. So, you take the big hit at first load but then it's snappy after that.

Although, I would think the load size and speed for such a basic site would be better with standard HTML for everything but the blog.

Also, the main JS file is 1690 lines long and even though it says it is min in the file name, it doesn't seem to be minified.

The CSS file has some nice stuff going on in there. Some of the selectors are a bit long for my tastes though.

Re: Facebook React.js License

#103

Post by matt4077 » Wed, Oct 12, 2016, 5:06 PM UTC

coding123 wrote: post #72

Email I just sent the OSI: Please see here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12692552 It turns out companies are now "bastardizing" the license terms. I would love for the OSI to re-evaluate if these licences are truly open source. Open source covers freedom, and I should think that these clauses abridge that freedom since it is very well possible for a company to be required to sue Apple or Facebook over patents…

The OSI are opposed to software patents anyway, so I doubt that they have a problem with them becoming worthless.

"Freedom" is an empty slogan in this regard. Copyleft licenses have long restricted your freedom, the idea being that there are colliding "freedoms" under some circumstances and it's for the greater good of society to restrict some peoples "freedom" (those creating derivative works) for the benefit of of the end-user.

Re: Facebook React.js License

#104

Post by gcp » Wed, Oct 12, 2016, 5:08 PM UTC

briankwest wrote: post #71

How is this any different than the MPL 1.1 license? Section 8 of the MPL 1.1 has similar language. /b

It's completely different.

MPL 1.1 talks about "such Participant's Contributor Version directly or indirectly infringes any patent"

Which refers to the software itself. Which means it's a patent retaliation clause similar to the one Microsoft and Google use. If you claim patents on someone for using specific software, you lose any patent licenses for said software that were granted to you. But in Facebook's case, the retaliation extends when you make any patent claim on anything Facebook does, even if it's completely unrelated to the software in question. Meanwhile, the patent license that Facebook gives you does not extend beyond the software in question.

So you're effectively licensing all your patents to Facebook, and Facebook only gives you the ones you need to use the software.

Re: Facebook React.js License

#105

Post by draw_down » Wed, Oct 12, 2016, 5:08 PM UTC

I'm not a lawyer so I can't say with certainty, but I'm sure Facebook could make React's license a bit nicer in some ways.

But I can't buy it as a reason for not using React, that sounds bogus to me. Facebook isn't gonna come sue your beer-ranking app company over a patent beef.

Re: Facebook React.js License

#106

Post by appleflaxen » Wed, Oct 12, 2016, 5:10 PM UTC

guelo wrote: post #100

To me it's the GPL of patents; it's a viral anti-patent license. Once you use React you must disarm in the destructive patent wars. I wish more popular software were released with it.

it's not really viral... the viral aspect of GPL is that any derived work you distribute would automatically have to be open.

in the case of the patents, they're not really used to create a derived work. As a result, there is no "infection".

Re: Facebook React.js License

#107

Post by RodericDay » Wed, Oct 12, 2016, 5:11 PM UTC

lucb1e wrote: post #62

The way I read it, it's not evil. It's a known and deliberate shortcoming of many licenses (e.g. BSD) not to include patent stuff because it makes everything unnecessarily complex. There was recently an article about why BSD and MIT are so popular, and it's because they're concise and understandable. There is a reason WTFPL exists and some developers resort to it as a way to avoid legalese. Facebook clearly was aware…

Imagine I come up with a really cool middle-out compression algorithm. I also build my online presence using React.js.

If Facebook uses my algorithm without my permission, and I sue them, do I open myself to being sued for using React.js?

Re: Facebook React.js License

#108

Post by gcp » Wed, Oct 12, 2016, 5:12 PM UTC

guelo wrote: post #100

To me it's the GPL of patents; it's a viral anti-patent license. Once you use React you must disarm in the destructive patent wars. I wish more popular software were released with it.

The problem is that Facebook doesn't need to disarm, and it's removing your options to fight them if they do not [1].

It's like being forced to abide by the GPL but having the other party use your code under BSD.

[1] I originally said "defend against", but the countersuing clause does cover that.

Re: Facebook React.js License

#109

Post by matt4077 » Wed, Oct 12, 2016, 5:14 PM UTC

gcp wrote: post #41

shadowmint wrote: post #39

If companies fear that if they try to enforce their patents they will lose access to significant commercial opportunities as a result of not being able to use projects such as react... ...basically, I welcome it. Patents are harmful. The FSF has, to my knowledge, made no meaningful progress in significant patent reform. If this helps, then bring it on.

Facebook's patent license doesn't grant you any patents outside the ones used by React. It does grant them freedom to use any patent you may have (if you use their software). See the problem? Even if you don't like patents, it makes the playing field totally uneven.

It still lowers the value of IP patents, since that value has most often manifest itself in suing Facebook/Apple etc.

With their value being even marginally reduced, maybe some patents will never be filed, or the value proposition of setting up patent-litigation entities is reduced enough to discourage it.

Basically this is net-positive for anyone who doesn't own or plan to own patents, even if it is even better for Facebook.

Re: Facebook React.js License

#110

Post by EdwardMSmith » Wed, Oct 12, 2016, 5:17 PM UTC

RodericDay wrote: post #107

lucb1e wrote: post #62

The way I read it, it's not evil. It's a known and deliberate shortcoming of many licenses (e.g. BSD) not to include patent stuff because it makes everything unnecessarily complex. There was recently an article about why BSD and MIT are so popular, and it's because they're concise and understandable. There is a reason WTFPL exists and some developers resort to it as a way to avoid legalese. Facebook clearly was aware…

Imagine I come up with a really cool middle-out compression algorithm. I also build my online presence using React.js. If Facebook uses my algorithm without my permission, and I sue them, do I open myself to being sued for using React.js?

Your explicit grant to any patents that Facebook holds that may cover react is terminated.

Your license to use react is not terminated (https://code.facebook.com/pages/850928938376556).

So, what is the practical upshot of not having the explicit grant to the patents? Can you be sued for patent infringement for using open source software that may be covered by patents owned by the majority contributor to the open source software?