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

281–290 of 622 posts

Re: Explaining React's license

#281

Post by riffraff »

reconbot wrote: post #185
khuey wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If React really is covered by patents Facebook has then Preact is likely infringing on them since it does the same things in similar ways. And Preact doesn't come with a patent grant from Facebook at all.

We learned from Java and Google that you can't patent and API. It's not forked from React it's an alternative.

> We learned from Java and Google that you can't patent and API

did we? I think the jury is still out on this, i.e. we had one verdict for google, one for oracle, one for google again, and now there's another appeal.

Re: Explaining React's license

#282

Post by chrisco255 »

beager wrote: post #41

As I understand the asymmetry in the BSD+patents license, the real issue here is that usage of React significantly weakens you with respect to mounting a defense against Facebook for infringing upon your own patents or IP, a possibility which, given the stark example of Instagram Stories, is plainly plausible. (This is not to say that Instagram Stories is patent theft, but rather a propensity to copy ideas wholesale)…

Not really. Not necessarily. Patents aren't all created equal. The economic value you derive from using Facebook's open-source patent grants is probably not going to be higher than whatever patent suit you're bringing against Facebook (if you deem it necessary and have the millions to wage such a war).

Re: Explaining React's license

#283

Post by digitalzombie »

Damn glad I left web dev 3 years or so ago.

It was ember vs angular. I was like I'm out, going for data science.

While on the side line I've witness:

Angular was winning until Google made a new framework and named it Angular 2.

React took over until people find out their license is a trojan horse.

Now what? emberjs? Angular 3 (oh wait wtf it's 4)?

Jeez, front end is a mess of wild west. Yes, I understand the value in keeping up to date and continuously studying but the rate that frontend is going it is stupid.

Re: Explaining React's license

#284

Post by slavik81 »

chrisco255 wrote: post #245
DannyBee wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"MIT and BSD licenses don't have any patent grants, unlike the Apache 2.0 license. If you use MIT/BSD open source software, and some functionality of that software is patented by the author, you could be sued for patent infringement. " Every single lawyer i've ever spoken to strongly believes implied licenses will protect you very well here. Like, among us open source lawyers, it's pretty much the one thing people ag…

The problem is that your MIT licensed open source library is not guaranteed to not be in violation of any software patents that may exist in the wild. If Company A publishes an open source library that happens to violate Company B's patents...then Company A's MIT license is not going to protect you against Company B's patent.

Nor would Facebook's patent grant protect you if React were found to violate someone else's patents. That sort of scenario is no different for either licence.

Re: Explaining React's license

#285

Post by sanxiyn »

JoshMnem wrote: post #229
tuxracer wrote: post #200

Just as a thought experiment if every piece of software had a similar clause in their license it would mark the end of software patents. Isn't this what we actually want more of? Isn't _that_ actually the moral high ground?

If that were Facebook's goal, why wouldn't they just team up with a few other large companies and lobby for abolishing software patents in the US?

I actually think this is Facebook's goal. As for your question, I think they aren't trying to abolish software patents in the US because they judge (IMO correctly) that it is unlikely to succeed.

Re: Explaining React's license

#286

Post by chrisco255 »

grizzles wrote: post #207
wolco wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately the wording covers a subsidiary, agents act on behalf and any interest including financial even in an indirect way.

Since Facebook grants a license, the worst case scenario is you sue Facebook for infringing your "X" patent, and then they search your website and find a react ui, and then you say oh we bought that off WebKidCo. IANAL but it seems farfetched that a court could/would hold a company bound to such a broad clause for what it's supplier(s) did. Or you could just sue Facebook for using your patent "X" after having first m…

This theoretical litigation process with claims & counter-claims against Facebook would cost you millions. Patents are by themselves incredibly expensive to defend. Your "X" patent better be worth tens of millions and Facebook better be deriving millions in value from it, or this is just an exercise in futility.

Re: Explaining React's license

#287

Post by chrisco255 »

geocar wrote: post #269
chrisco255 wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

React Router v4 is dead simple: https://medium.com/@pshrmn/a-simple-react-router-v4-tutorial... It's just React components up and down. Most of the concepts that you must learn with React have to do with understanding JavaScript. If you know JS, you know 80% of what you need to know.

It's also less capable and completely incompatible with router 3.

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.

Re: Explaining React's license

#288

Post by ZenoArrow »

tannhaeuser wrote: post #215
thesagan wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm also going to hop on this train and move away from react. Personally and professionally, I don't like the direction the big players are taking the internet. (The closed, proprietary model.) I suppose there's not much I can do about it except to move my efforts elsewhere, even if it affects my earnings.

> I don't like the direction the big players are taking the internet It's more like developers in large parts stopped caring for standards and looked after products and "big players" and "the next big thing" instead aka the consumerization of IT. Happened to SQL, browsers, middleware, network protocols, app servers, containers, programming and markup languages, and more. Nowadays, big things come onto the scene and i…

In the case of SQL, I'd say the fragmentation happened because the standards weren't keeping pace with the types of improvements developers were looking for. Even the different RDBMS couldn't keep pace with all the trends, they've each focused on building up different strengths. We'll probably see a return to standards once the rate of innovation slows down.

Re: Explaining React's license

#289

Post by imtringued »

Strom wrote: post #271
jlrubin wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> closed source That's not really the problem here. The problem is that by using React, even in a closed source context, you are potentially setting yourself up to not successfully make an IP claim against facebook, even for unrelated technologies.

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.

Yeah and that is exactly the problem with the license.

You give up your right to sue facebook with ALL your patents while facebook only gives up the right to sue you with their REACT patent. We don't even know if there is such a thing as a "react patent".

Re: Explaining React's license

#290

Post by chrisco255 »

oneweekwonder wrote: post #260
chrisco255 wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great explanation of implications of React patent clause: https://medium.com/@dwalsh.sdlr/react-facebook-and-the-revok...

No. The implication is if you use react now you give away rights. The same is not true for angular, vue or mithril. Some argue if you use vdom there might be issue. But at least with those you/your dev is not giving away rights willingly... But come to think of it; That is the way fb started :/

No, what rights are you giving away? You always have the right to sue anyone for any reason. There have always been consequences for doing so. If you want to sue Facebook for patent infringement...they own thousands of patents, mind you...they are going to comb through their portfolio and find which ones you're infringing on in your product. That's what any company would do. Google. Apple. Microsoft. Samsung. Yahoo. Any of them.
Post reply on HN