9 ms·

That's exactly why only a fool will use reactjs in their web design, because FB will put you out of business and if you sue them for infringing your patents, yo

by bedros 9y ago

That's exactly why only a fool will use reactjs in their web design, because FB will put you out of business and if you sue them for infringing your patents, your reactjs license is revoked

dgfgfdagasdfgfa 9y ago
That's exactly why only a fool would build their software product around patent protection.
zepolen 9y ago
I didn't know this, this needs to be more well known. How does this affect libraries like preact?
- madeofpalk 9y ago
  It is rather well known but it's mostly FUD.
- chc 9y ago
  It's not accurate. Facebook offers a blanket patent license with React, and the patent license (not the software license — just the patent one) terminates if you sue Facebook for patent infringement. And of course, if you sue them for any other reason, nothing happens at all. And even if the patent license is terminated, AFAIK React isn't known to be patent-encumbered. Acting like this is some landmine that allows Facebook to just put anyone they dislike out of business is ridiculous. Other JavaScript frameworks like Angular and Ember don't even include patent clauses, so even if Facebook revokes the patent grant, that leaves you in the same position that you're in by default with Angular. The license even specifically allows you to counter-sue Facebook if they already have a lawsuit against you.
  - jacques_chester 9y ago
    I think the cause of the complaint is that if they wanted these things in a license, they could've used Apache 2 and been done with it. Any confusion that arises from deciding to depart from well-understood licenses is fairly laid at their door, in my view.
    - chc 9y ago
      Apache 2 is somewhat less permissive than Facebook's choice of BSD + patent grant. I agree that people probably wouldn't have been able to spread the FUD so successfully if they'd gone for a more conventional setup, but the licenses are short (probably shorter than Apache combined) and pretty clear. It feels pretty unfair to say "Facebook's open source dev team deserve to have their names run down because they chose more permissive license terms than we're used to."
  - beagle3 9y ago
    > Acting like this is some landmine that allows Facebook to just put anyone they dislike out of business is ridiculous. That's true; however, > React isn't known to be patent-encumbered. That's a useless assertion. Many patents only become known once the lawsuits start. Facebook has amassed a patent portfolio, and patents are a legal instrument that can only be used offensively.
    - chc 9y ago
      Sure, but none of that makes it a useless assertion. I'm not saying React is a magic shield from lawsuits — I'm saying that React doesn't appear to be any more dangerous in this regard than the majority of open-source software. You could validly express the same concerns about nearly anything. Remember, the claim I was disputing was that "only a fool will use reactjs" because the patent license is conditional. All I'm saying is that I don't see any reason to be more concerned about React than, say, Angular.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
notheguyouthink 9y ago
I see lots of down voting on this person, but not many replies. Is there truth to this comment? Is React licensing something companies should avoid?
- jacquesm 9y ago
  Not a fan of FB here. That comment is nonsense. It is completely unthinkable that Facebook would do this.
  - bedros 9y ago
    if you're a threat to FB, the unthinkable will happen.
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      If you're a threat to FB you: (1) can afford to roll your own framework (2) can afford the lawyers required to point out that this doesn't hold water
      - bedros 9y ago
        totally true, if you're google, however if you're a startup, and build your platform on react, it would be really hard to switch to other platform once you have million of lines of code.
  - beagle3 9y ago
    > It is completely unthinkable that Facebook would do this. Facebook is a (among many other things) a software company, and software companies do warfare with patents. It might be their least favorite weapon, one they have yet to use - but "unthinkable" can only refer to your beliefs -- it is actually extremely thinkable, even if at this point in time improbable.
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      The lifetime of JS frameworks is so short that this is not a realistic concern, beyond that the license makes it impossible. Sorry but this is not a scenario that will play out in some way that you'd have to be worried about it when evaluating your choices today.
goo 9y ago
To be clear: reactjs uses the 3 Clause BSD license. https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/LICENSE https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/LICENSE It's incredibly permissive (nearly the same as the MIT license), and does not allow for the concept of having it "revoked".
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
bedros 9y ago
for those who downvoted me, can you explain why I'm wrong, Would you believe that Apple today would use react in their products? What would Steve Jobs say to someone who suggests using react in apple software/saas? downvoting on HN is being abused here, just because someone is a big fan of reactjs and disagrees with me, they automatically downvote a valid opinion based on facts. see for yourself, from react patent clause "The license granted hereunder will terminate, automatically and without notice," https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/PATENTS https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/PATENTS
- spicyj 9y ago
  Yes, Apple is known to use React. If you are in doubt, the license that could terminate is just the patent grant. The copyright license would remain in effect.
- chc 9y ago
  I explained how you're wrong here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14659675 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14659675 The TL;DR is: "That is just a patent license, and most OSS doesn't even include a patent license at all, so it seems weird to be super-concerned in this case in particular."
  - bedros 9y ago
    Thanks for the reference ,but I read your earlier comment here's the issue when picking reactjs vs others (like vuejs) Choice A. by picking reactjs I'm in a clear violation of FB patents, but I'm covered as long I don't sue FB. Choice B. by picking others (like vuejs), I may or may not be violating FB patents, (virtualDOM has some prior art, as some people claim) why it's so hard for people to understand that "May or Maynot" is a better choice of "definitely" violating FB patents in case I need to sue FB if they are killing my business by copying my patents. I know that suing for patents is not best business model. But, having that weapon (even defensively) is better than not having one. still people downvote for gray areas?
    - 9y ago

by bedros 9y ago

That's exactly why only a fool will use reactjs in their web design, because FB will put you out of business and if you sue them for infringing your patents, your reactjs license is revoked

dgfgfdagasdfgfa 9y ago

That's exactly why only a fool would build their software product around patent protection.

zepolen 9y ago

I didn't know this, this needs to be more well known. How does this affect libraries like preact?

madeofpalk 9y ago
It is rather well known but it's mostly FUD.
chc 9y ago
It's not accurate. Facebook offers a blanket patent license with React, and the patent license (not the software license — just the patent one) terminates if you sue Facebook for patent infringement. And of course, if you sue them for any other reason, nothing happens at all. And even if the patent license is terminated, AFAIK React isn't known to be patent-encumbered. Acting like this is some landmine that allows Facebook to just put anyone they dislike out of business is ridiculous. Other JavaScript frameworks like Angular and Ember don't even include patent clauses, so even if Facebook revokes the patent grant, that leaves you in the same position that you're in by default with Angular. The license even specifically allows you to counter-sue Facebook if they already have a lawsuit against you.
- jacques_chester 9y ago
  I think the cause of the complaint is that if they wanted these things in a license, they could've used Apache 2 and been done with it. Any confusion that arises from deciding to depart from well-understood licenses is fairly laid at their door, in my view.
  - chc 9y ago
    Apache 2 is somewhat less permissive than Facebook's choice of BSD + patent grant. I agree that people probably wouldn't have been able to spread the FUD so successfully if they'd gone for a more conventional setup, but the licenses are short (probably shorter than Apache combined) and pretty clear. It feels pretty unfair to say "Facebook's open source dev team deserve to have their names run down because they chose more permissive license terms than we're used to."
- beagle3 9y ago
  > Acting like this is some landmine that allows Facebook to just put anyone they dislike out of business is ridiculous. That's true; however, > React isn't known to be patent-encumbered. That's a useless assertion. Many patents only become known once the lawsuits start. Facebook has amassed a patent portfolio, and patents are a legal instrument that can only be used offensively.
  - chc 9y ago
    Sure, but none of that makes it a useless assertion. I'm not saying React is a magic shield from lawsuits — I'm saying that React doesn't appear to be any more dangerous in this regard than the majority of open-source software. You could validly express the same concerns about nearly anything. Remember, the claim I was disputing was that "only a fool will use reactjs" because the patent license is conditional. All I'm saying is that I don't see any reason to be more concerned about React than, say, Angular.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

notheguyouthink 9y ago

I see lots of down voting on this person, but not many replies. Is there truth to this comment? Is React licensing something companies should avoid?

jacquesm 9y ago
Not a fan of FB here. That comment is nonsense. It is completely unthinkable that Facebook would do this.
- bedros 9y ago
  if you're a threat to FB, the unthinkable will happen.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    If you're a threat to FB you: (1) can afford to roll your own framework (2) can afford the lawyers required to point out that this doesn't hold water
    - bedros 9y ago
      totally true, if you're google, however if you're a startup, and build your platform on react, it would be really hard to switch to other platform once you have million of lines of code.
- beagle3 9y ago
  > It is completely unthinkable that Facebook would do this. Facebook is a (among many other things) a software company, and software companies do warfare with patents. It might be their least favorite weapon, one they have yet to use - but "unthinkable" can only refer to your beliefs -- it is actually extremely thinkable, even if at this point in time improbable.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    The lifetime of JS frameworks is so short that this is not a realistic concern, beyond that the license makes it impossible. Sorry but this is not a scenario that will play out in some way that you'd have to be worried about it when evaluating your choices today.

goo 9y ago

To be clear: reactjs uses the 3 Clause BSD license. https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/LICENSE https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/LICENSE It's incredibly permissive (nearly the same as the MIT license), and does not allow for the concept of having it "revoked".

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

bedros 9y ago

for those who downvoted me, can you explain why I'm wrong, Would you believe that Apple today would use react in their products? What would Steve Jobs say to someone who suggests using react in apple software/saas? downvoting on HN is being abused here, just because someone is a big fan of reactjs and disagrees with me, they automatically downvote a valid opinion based on facts. see for yourself, from react patent clause "The license granted hereunder will terminate, automatically and without notice," https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/PATENTS https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/PATENTS

spicyj 9y ago
Yes, Apple is known to use React. If you are in doubt, the license that could terminate is just the patent grant. The copyright license would remain in effect.
chc 9y ago
I explained how you're wrong here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14659675 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14659675 The TL;DR is: "That is just a patent license, and most OSS doesn't even include a patent license at all, so it seems weird to be super-concerned in this case in particular."
- bedros 9y ago
  Thanks for the reference ,but I read your earlier comment here's the issue when picking reactjs vs others (like vuejs) Choice A. by picking reactjs I'm in a clear violation of FB patents, but I'm covered as long I don't sue FB. Choice B. by picking others (like vuejs), I may or may not be violating FB patents, (virtualDOM has some prior art, as some people claim) why it's so hard for people to understand that "May or Maynot" is a better choice of "definitely" violating FB patents in case I need to sue FB if they are killing my business by copying my patents. I know that suing for patents is not best business model. But, having that weapon (even defensively) is better than not having one. still people downvote for gray areas?
  - 9y ago