Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you doubt it? I'm pretty sure that Elm will do it. :)
Are there any big projects currently written in Elm?
What do you consider big? Elm is still in the early stages.
Explaining React's license
441–450 of 622 posts
Re: Explaining React's license
#442Earlier quoted context omitted.
People are worried about Situation C: React is licensed under BSD + PATENTS. You sue Facebook (or any corporate affiliate of theirs) for infringing on your widget patent. Facebook revokes your react license and counter sues you for copyright infringement. The patents clause doesn't have anything to do with any patents on parts of React. It's a way for Facebook to make it so that anyone who wants to sue them for paten…
> People are worried about Situation C: React is licensed under BSD + PATENTS. You sue Facebook (or any corporate affiliate of theirs) for infringing on your widget patent. Facebook revokes your react license and counter sues you for copyright infringement. This cannot happen. This is not a thing. Nobody is legitimately worried about this; anyone who is needs to take a deep breath and stop being ridiculous. This has…
The lawyer who wrote this piece [1], AND automattic's general counsel agree on this.
> Automaticc’s general counsel also agrees with my analysis of contractual and copyright liability in that the patent clause does not revoke the underlying license.
[1] https://medium.com/@dwalsh.sdlr/react-facebook-and-the-revok...
Re: Explaining React's license
#443Earlier quoted context omitted.
Finishing up a project at work with Vue right now, and I gotta say it's really excellent to work with. Way more intuitive than some other frameworks out there.
But does it also provide an alternative to React Native?
You can use Vue with Nativescript but at this point it's still early days
https://www.nativescript.org/blog/a-new-vue-for-nativescript
Re: Explaining React's license
#444Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you mean this one? https://code.facebook.com/pages/850928938376556 It doesn't address the scenario of Facebook's violating your patents first.
The key phrase I was replying to was "Facebook will revoke your React license." Facebook cannot revoke your React license in any circumstances, as that link makes clear.
"Facebook, Inc. ("Facebook") hereby grants to each recipient of the Software
("you") a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, irrevocable
(subject to the termination provision below) license under any Necessary
Claims, to make, have made, use, sell, offer to sell, import, and otherwise
transfer the Software...The license granted hereunder will terminate, automatically and without notice..."
The PATENTS file affects more than just React. It's found in their other projects too.
Re: Explaining React's license
#445That's a shame. I really like the React interface, but would never build a company with it at the core just on the principle. Revoking on first strike is super defensive and just plain slimy.
If there were something like create-preact-app (not forked from create-react-app) I'd be all about it. With special decorators, dogmatic separation of templates, styles and logic, and mutability I don't think I can get aboard the Vue.js train though I'll admit I haven't dove deep yet.
The worst part is how Facebook seems to be asking other big players to follow their lead in adding kill switches to FOSS. It'd be one thing if it were just React. Devs shouldn't let this become common practice.
Re: Explaining React's license
#446Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
That seems highly unlikely, considering the way Facebook operates.
Re: Explaining React's license
#447> We've been looking for ways around this and have reached out to ASF to see if we could try to work with them, but have come up empty. There's a pretty obvious solution to this: relicense React. The fact that Facebook isn't even considering that is a pretty strong indication that they "weaponized" their license on purpose. > To this point, though, we haven't done a good job of explaining the reasons behind our BSD +…
They need to stop referring to React as open source software. This is proprietary source code. > We believe that if this license were widely adopted, it could actually reduce meritless litigation for all adopters, and we want to work with others to explore this possibility. They do not give a pathway for litigation with merit. This is a patent weapon.
> They need to stop referring to React as open source software. This is proprietary source code.
Somewhere along the line we lost the distinction between "Open Source" and "Source Opened".
Re: Explaining React's license
#448Earlier quoted context omitted.
Angular does not come with a patent grant at all. Vue most likely is infringing on FB patents anyway. So what is the win exactly?
> Vue most likely is infringing on FB patents anyway There are zero known patents related to react.
In that case, the patent clause in the React license has zero effect.
Re: Explaining React's license
#449So for example if I create a product using React, something social-ish and it gets really popular. Facebook decides they like it and could easily implement something like that themselves. I find it to be blatant copy of my stuff. Nothing I can do there, right?
Re: Explaining React's license
#450Earlier quoted context omitted.
The risk behind Preact isn't the API . Remember, this is a discussion about patents , so what matters is fundamental concepts and algorithms. The most likely thing for Facebook to patent is the concept of a virtual DOM that's diffed to apply updates to the real DOM. IF they have such a patent (and apparently they don't), then any library that has a vdom implementation infringes, including Preact. Of course, if they D…
I believe you are mistaken, the problem with the license, if I recall the discussion correctly was that if your company used React then they can't go on a patent lawsuit with Facebook even if the patents have zilch to do with React.
That may be what was said in a discussion, but it is incorrect. If your company sues Facebook for a patent, then you lose the extra patent grant, which means you would have only the original BSD license. Which is what ASF seems to want the software license under anyway.
The patent grant from FB grants you strictly more rights than BSD alone (though admittedly, you could lose those extra rights).