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

91–100 of 622 posts

Re: Explaining React's license

#91

Post by inopinatus »

bdcravens wrote: post #80
slackoverflower wrote: post #62

Of course they release this late on a Friday so it is does not get much reach. Facebook is very very evil - in every part of the company. Copying other's ideas (Snapchat) yet trying to stop other companies from copying them (this licensing).

I don't see it as "released". It's just the closing of a Github issue, not a press release. Do you feel that if a company is "evil", do you feel there's a moral imperative to not use their products? It seems to me there's a lot of "But React!" going on.

It's an interesting question. I actually do feel that way, and this was a significant factor in choosing to use Vue.js for my next project over both React & Angular.

Re: Explaining React's license

#92

Post by SirensOfTitan »

kuschku wrote: post #89
carussell wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> how Facebook would feel if all the open source software they currently use incorporated the same license That would work incredibly well to neutralize patents, actually, and would be a huge win for free/open source software. It's surprising not to have seen anyone point out the logical conclusion of a world where every major license includes a React-like stance on patents: it's a world where no one is able to bring…

This is sadly false. This would only neutralize patents of actual companies that have something to create. The only ones left to hold patents would be patent trolls. This would just massively empower patent trolls, and harm everyone. Because patent trolls don’t have to license patents there’s no risk for them.

> This would only neutralize patents of actual companies that have something to create.

Against each other only, right? They could still use their patents against patent trolls.

Re: Explaining React's license

#93

Post by votepaunchy »

jnbiche wrote: post #47
votepaunchy wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. The PATENTS portion of BSD+Patents does not nullify the BSD License. So you are no worse off than had Facebook simply licensed the code under the BSD License.

Wow, that is pretty disingenuous. Clearly, BSD+Patents places some extra conditions on the BSD license, you don't have to be a lawyer to understand that. I mean, several people have provided the legal reasons elsewhere on this thread, but even the name "BSD PLUS Patents" should be a tip-off.

No, its not at all disingenuous. Facebook could have written the "Additional Grant of Patent Rights" (note: additional) to also terminate the copyright grant under the BSD license. But they did not: https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/PATENTS

Re: Explaining React's license

#94

Post by pdfernhout »

joobus wrote: post #66
pdfernhout wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I got tons of pushback when I tried to steer Automattic and the WordPress community away from React in 2015 with people saying not to worry: "Replace React with Mithril for licensing reasons" https://github.com/Automattic/wp-calypso/issues/650 Personally, I increasingly doubt that BSD+PATENTS is even GPL-compatible -- and so potentially Automattic may be violating the GPL by using React integrated with WordPres…

React also has react-native. There is no comparable alternative for that.

You're right overall (at least for developers who prefer React). React Native is a compelling technology. That said, I can hope that over time, lightweight JavaScript libraries like Mithril along with better mobile browsers with better support for occasionally-connected web applications will continue to reduce the relative benefits of a native approach. Apache Cordova and NativeScript are other options as well.

Re: Explaining React's license

#95

Post by hardwaresofton »

carussell wrote: post #79
jwingy wrote: post #60

I wonder how Facebook would feel if all the open source software they currently use incorporated the same license. I bet it would deter them from enjoying much of the code they built their business on. This stance seems pretty antithetical to the goal and spirit of open source software and I really hope it's not the beginning of other companies following suit and 'poisoning' the well.

> how Facebook would feel if all the open source software they currently use incorporated the same license That would work incredibly well to neutralize patents, actually, and would be a huge win for free/open source software. It's surprising not to have seen anyone point out the logical conclusion of a world where every major license includes a React-like stance on patents: it's a world where no one is able to bring…

So this opinion almost swayed me, but the problem is that companies aren't scared of open source writers suing them.

If you use project A that was written by one or two developers in their spare time (and they included a BSD+patents) clause, would Facebook fear being sued by them? Probably not -- but new companies that get anywhere close to what Facebook does (increasingly, that's everything these days) definitely live with the real possibility of facebook suing them.

In theory the "no one is able to bring patent suits against anyone because they're violating licenses" is a good outcome (mostly the no patent suits part), but it doesn't quite stand up in practice because patent suits cost money, and bigger companies can sue you longer than you can sue them. I don't want a world where MAD is the default, because the large companies carry nukes, and I carry a peashooter.

I will no longer use react on any new projects.

Re: Explaining React's license

#96

Post by carussell »

kuschku wrote: post #89
carussell wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> how Facebook would feel if all the open source software they currently use incorporated the same license That would work incredibly well to neutralize patents, actually, and would be a huge win for free/open source software. It's surprising not to have seen anyone point out the logical conclusion of a world where every major license includes a React-like stance on patents: it's a world where no one is able to bring…

This is sadly false. This would only neutralize patents of actual companies that have something to create. The only ones left to hold patents would be patent trolls. This would just massively empower patent trolls, and harm everyone. Because patent trolls don’t have to license patents there’s no risk for them.

See my remark about impossible audits. Patent trolls are almost definitely relying on FOSS whether they're in the business of creating software or not.

Re: Explaining React's license

#97

Post by falcolas »

ralmidani wrote: post #72

For someone like me, (Free Software advocate, Ember user looking for a breath of fresh air--and better job prospects--with React), it all boils down to doing a cost-benefit analysis. Sweeping conclusions like "you have nothing to worry about" or "you should never use software with such a license" do not apply to everyone. As a Free Software advocate, I abhor troll-like behavior, regardless of whether the vehicle is p…

Is React really free software? It's free as in beer, but you have to give up a lot of rights completely unrelated to React in order to use it.

Sure, it may never be a problem (it probably won't be a problem for 99.9% or more of those who use it), but who is willing to take that chance with the future of their company?

Re: Explaining React's license

#98

Post by kuschku »

SirensOfTitan wrote: post #92
kuschku wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is sadly false. This would only neutralize patents of actual companies that have something to create. The only ones left to hold patents would be patent trolls. This would just massively empower patent trolls, and harm everyone. Because patent trolls don’t have to license patents there’s no risk for them.

> This would only neutralize patents of actual companies that have something to create. Against each other only, right? They could still use their patents against patent trolls.

Yes, but which patent troll actually uses anything that you can prove violates their patents? They’re basically immune.

Re: Explaining React's license

#99

Post by bdcravens »

inopinatus wrote: post #91
bdcravens wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see it as "released". It's just the closing of a Github issue, not a press release. Do you feel that if a company is "evil", do you feel there's a moral imperative to not use their products? It seems to me there's a lot of "But React!" going on.

It's an interesting question. I actually do feel that way, and this was a significant factor in choosing to use Vue.js for my next project over both React & Angular.

I'm on the fence about the license, but I totally believe your technology choices should reflect your convictions. Obviously there's a lot of attitudes of entitlement in our industry where it's easier to make a Github comment or a tweet than to take a stand.

Re: Explaining React's license

#100

Post by jnbiche »

Lazare wrote: post #86
pdfernhout wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I got tons of pushback when I tried to steer Automattic and the WordPress community away from React in 2015 with people saying not to worry: "Replace React with Mithril for licensing reasons" https://github.com/Automattic/wp-calypso/issues/650 Personally, I increasingly doubt that BSD+PATENTS is even GPL-compatible -- and so potentially Automattic may be violating the GPL by using React integrated with WordPres…

If Facebook has a patent on React, it's almost certainly going to be on the vdom concept. If Facebook has a patent on the vdom, then all the projects in your list violate the patent, and none of them come with even a conditional patent grant from Facebook. If Facebook does not have a patent on the vdom or other React technology, then those other projects are safe, but so is React , since termination of the patent gra…

You're missing the fact that if you sue Facebook for any patent infringement, even a legitimate one (say, you're the creator of some new hardware), Facebook will revoke your React license.

Also, Facebook has no vdom patent. It's not like you can be granted a secret, hidden patent (even the word "patent" itself means "open").

Post reply on HN