React Native and Yoga Both Given MIT Licence by Facebook

Post by schrep » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 3:13 PM UTC

JoshMnem wrote: post #86

hultner wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by bschwindHN » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 3:44 PM UTC

jankassens wrote: post #44

bschwindHN wrote: post #16

Neat! Yoga is a great library, I wrote Rust bindings for it: https://github.com/bschwind/yoga-rs?files=1 I eventually want a React Native esque framework but written in Rust instead of JS. Still a ways away though, I don't have much time to work on it.

I would recommend taking a look at Litho (Android) and ComponentKit (iOS). Both frameworks by Facebook and inspired by the React component model for pure native development.

Post by JoshMnem » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 4:07 PM UTC

schrep wrote: post #91

JoshMnem wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I totally get that view and it bums me out. I can say there is reasoned debate about the different licenses as you can see in this thread. We've changed an explicit patent grant into a debated implicit one. We thought the first was clearer to folks but when debate turned into action we decided winning the debate wasn't important we should just do what would allow people to use the code. I know big companies can look…

Post by dikaiosune » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 5:00 PM UTC

true_religion wrote: post #85

Sacho wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by mygo » Sat, Feb 17, 2018, 5:19 PM UTC

ballenf wrote: post #90

mygo wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.