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

81–90 of 124 posts

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

#81

Post by tomduncalf »

zebraflask wrote: post #59
tomduncalf wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep - C++ is generally used for audio programming because you can write code that is real time safe for use on the audio thread (low latencies mean you might have 5ms to fill a buffer with fairly intense calculations required for a modern synth, so any waiting for locks, memory allocation, GC pauses etc. can be disastrous and lead to audible glitches). On top of that there’s a huge amount of code and libraries for au…

Is there? What would that huge amount of code meant to you?

It means you can build on top of other people’s proven abstractions rather than writing your own buggy ones ;)

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

#82

Post by Lazare »

dastbe wrote: post #31
Lazare wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 It hardly matters now, but as gets pointed out every time this gets brought up, this is quite false . You would lose the legal right to use any patents which Facebook might (or might not!) have on React. You did not…

So obviously IANAL, but aren't you eliding the fact that the explicit patent grant was revoked on suing facebook for patent infringement? Whereas the implicit patent grant in MIT lacks that caveat?

The explicit grant was revoked in circumstances that are unlikely to matter for the overwhelming majority of users.

The implicit grant doesn't get revoked, but how it works is still unclear. This is true especially (I believe) when it comes to sub-licenseability and patent exhaustion, where the exact mechanics have yet to be worked out in the courts. If I download MIT licensed code, and then distribute it to you, you have a valid license to the copyright on that code, despite the fact that you didn't obtain it from the copyright holder. Do you also have a valid license to any patents on that code? I have no idea, but I know enough to know it's not as obvious an answer as you might guess.

In general, explicit is better than implicit, and settled legal questions are better than fascinating mysteries. These factors weigh in favour of an explicit patent grant. The terms of the explicit patent grant Facebook was using, granted, were quite negative, but on balance I think I (and my current employer) probably were marginally better off with the older license terms. YMMV. :)

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

#83

Post by Lazare »

bad_user wrote: post #50
tomelders wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More importantly, you have more protection with the BSD+Patent Grant than with BSD alone. With BSD alone, if you infringe on a Facebook patent then you are vulnerable to legal action from Facebook if they deem that you’ve infringed your patent. And regardless of wether you’d infringed or not, such action would still cost a lot of money to fight in court and would cripple most businesses. People who claim it risks giv…

Please leave such opinions to actual lawyers. Apache placed React's BSD + PATENTS in "Category-X", banning it from being used in Apache projects: https://react-etc.net/entry/apache-foundation-bans-use-of-fa... > The BSD+Patent Grant was designed to combat the patent trolls, but people lost their minds and now it’s gone. It was designed for Facebook to fight patent trolls, but not for you. In comparison with saner lic…

The issue the Apache Foundation had with the license was that it was incompatible with the Apache license; they weren't making a value judgement about it being good, bad, strong, or weak. Many other excellent licenses are also in "Category-X".

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

#84

Post by richardfontana »

DannyBee wrote: post #20
dikaiosune wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 lawyer…

Regarding the MIT license, I know one lawyer who disagrees in practice but I'm not sure if that lawyer seriously believes it. That lawyer is associated with an effort by some companies that have traditionally used standards-setting activity as a patent license revenue generating activity, to argue that open source licenses can legitimately preclude any grant of patent license, explicitly or implicitly (that is, that an open source license can be a pure copyright license). Part of that effort is an attempt to argue, based for example on historical evidence or on a policy basis, that certain widely-used open source licenses, like the MIT license, are susceptible to the "copyright only" interpretation.

My co-worker Scott Peterson has given a lot of thought to the issue of the MIT license as explicitly embodying a patent license grant; I am hoping he will publish an article on this in the near future.

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

#85

Post by true_religion »

Sacho wrote: post #77
bsimpson wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're replying to a lawyer in the Open Source Program Office at Google: https://www.pli.edu/Content/Faculty/Daniel_Berlin/_/N-4oZ1z1... If there's anyone I'd expect to have a handle on open source law, it's him.

While I love reading DannyBee's opinions and am inclined to believe what he says, it's unfair to shoot down parent with an argument from authority; DannyBee did not actually cite any cases to highlight the precedent on implicit patent grants, which is exactly parent's point - it is very difficult to find publicly available information on this, aside from informal commentary.

Well the main thrust of his post (as I understood it), was contained within the first sentence:

> I couldn't easily find a credible patent lawyer who has written publicly about this

Since DannyBee is quite possibly a "credible patent lawyer", then the above poster is getting what he asked for.

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

#86

Post by JoshMnem »

hultner wrote: post #71
schrep wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually we just thought it was a shame that people wouldn’t use it because of the license. Not much more complicated than that.

I believe there charges shows not only well intention but also that Facebook actually cares about and listens to the community, which in the long term is many times more valuable for the ecosystem then this particular change in itself. Great work!

If they had changed the license when the community asked, that would have been listening to the community, but they didn't.

Changing the license because people are leaving the project only shows that FB cares about itself.

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

#87

Post by ballenf »

akie wrote: post #68
schrep wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually we just thought it was a shame that people wouldn’t use it because of the license. Not much more complicated than that.

Someone on Reddit argued that the new legal situation is worse because the PATENTS clause provided protection against litigation unless you sued Facebook first. Licensing under MIT, s/he argued, theoretically opens you up to litigation at any time IF Facebook decides to enforce any patents. So I was wondering: as far as you know, does Facebook have any patents on React or React Native?

Not to mention the question that the older language had a perpetual patent license for anyone using the software (subject to termination under the now much-discussed rare circumstance of suing FB).

So long as you were using the software under those conditions, it would be an interesting argument for how that patent license could now be unilaterally rescinded. (The new license doesn't say anything about it.)

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

#88

Post by solidr53 »

andrewingram wrote: post #70
rawrmaan wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exact opposite experience. After being a mobile dev for 8+ years and making all of my most recent apps in RN, including a rewrite of one that was many years old, you're wasting your time if you still write native code instead of RN. It's just better in every single way and is an incredibly impressive, stable piece of technology.

You probably have an advantage coming from a native background. The main thing i've been battling when it comes to React Native is that to do things really well, you do need to be able to dive into native code from time-to-time. It's definitely true that you can write simple apps with just the React layer, but I think people greatly underestimate the amount of work it takes to build an app that actually feels native.

It all comes down to the navigation. Use a native navigation, then you're good to go!

https://github.com/ueno-llc/react-native-starter

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

#89

Post by true_religion »

Moter8 wrote: post #67
raquo wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not at all different from loving music written by drug addicts whom you wouldn't want as friends. Software developers are people too.

I like the analogy. Sorta offtopic, but I was thinking about how morally falsy it is to buy albums of those artists, because well, most likely a big part of the revenue will be spent on drugs and on continuing that lifestyle.

Just because you don't like something doesn't mean you think it is immoral.

For example, many people against Facebook simply want to be in better control of their online identities, and have privacy. I am in this boat. I don't think Facebook is 'evil', or sharing my data with 3rd parties is a 'sin'; I just think society would be better off if privacy of this kind were more strongly controlled by individual choice, rather than the whim of a corporation.

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

#90

Post by ballenf »

mygo wrote: post #12
milcron wrote: post #3

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

They’re not getting rid of a patent grant. They’re getting rid of the PATENTS file. Semantics here actually matter.

Yep. Would be quite an interesting argument to make that removing a file serves as an effective means of unilaterally rescinding a perpetual patent license.
Post reply on HN