4 ms·

I was interested in React based on what I'd read and was figuring it'd be worth looking into, but this provides all the reason I need to avoid it - I don't fors

I was interested in React based on what I'd read and was figuring it'd be worth looking into, but this provides all the reason I need to avoid it - I don't forsee a situation where I would personally or as a small company be suing Facebook, but I could see developing something then selling/trying to sell it to a larger company. If my code comes with a big side of "oh, and if you buy this you won't be able to sue Facebook or its affiliated companies for patent infringement" that could significantly hurt sales chances.

mlsarecmg 9y ago
You can't avoid react because it started a new paradigm. 9 out of 10 frameworks are based on the same principles and native follows suit where even big vendors are changing their strategies for mobile and desktop to align them with reacts principles (react-native, microsofts react-native-windows, reactxp and office fiber, googles kotlin for android, litho, componentkit, etc). Switching from react to something else is sometimes as simple as adding an alias in webpack. If you don't like the license, use preact, inferno, etc. But the idea itself is way too valuable to be in any way affected by petty licensing issues.
- Profragile 9y ago
  I don't think anyone is against the paradigm. They're against the "no patents against facebook" situation which you can avoid by using else.
- threatofrain 9y ago
  The paradigm is everywhere, so just use another library that uses that paradigm, like Inferno or Preact, or even something slightly different like Vue if you want.
  - chrisco255 9y ago
    The point is those other libraries could be in violation of any patents that Facebook may or may not have with regards to React. Perhaps they have a patent on virtual DOM? That would mean your usage of Inferno, Preact, Vue, or Angular 2+ would violate the patent.
    - mlsarecmg 9y ago
      That would frankly be impossible. All JSX boils down to is h(name, properties, children) and that is literally it. Each reconciler is different, uses another v-dom, etc. If you wanted to patent react, you patent the mere use of functions. And not just that there are about 20 years of fair use of similar principles, even for jsx in particular which evolved from mozillas e4x and otherwise keeps to basic xml markup and mustaches.
      - chrisco255 9y ago
        I would like to think it's impossible. I just have seen crazier things patented before...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click
      - developit 9y ago
        Also impossible because JSX is independent of React. The specification is only subject to a standard Copyright and is released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.
  - mlsarecmg 9y ago
    Which is what i said.
    - threatofrain 9y ago
      Oops I didn't read carefully.
- thehardsphere 9y ago
  As if nobody was ever able to make a user interface before 2013.
- madhadron 9y ago
  It didn't start a new paradigm. It's a failure to understand functional reactive programming hidden behind a bizarre mix of HTML and JavaScript.
chrisco255 9y ago
If Microsoft's lawyers were okay with React, then I'm pretty sure your startup is okay. https://github.com/Microsoft/react-native-windows https://github.com/Microsoft/react-native-windows
- fencepost 9y ago
  I'll call that a false equivalency, because only in my wildest dreams can I consider anything I'm working on equivalent to Microsoft. Among the Microsoft-level things I lack I'll count their legal teams, patent portfolio, and negotiating clout. Anything I as a solo or mostly-solo dev would put together to sell would almost certainly be sold to a company less than 0.1% Microsoft's size - even at the 1% level it's just as likely that a company would decide they'd rather just build their own version or get someone to do so as a work for hire. Edit: I'm also mentally picturing scenarios where Facebook's terms might end up tested in court. A developer team using an open-source framework without understanding the legal ramifications is one thing, and a thing done by people not authorized to negotiate binding contracts for the company. A purchase of a company or significant software (not off-the-shelf) on the other hand is by definition done by someone with authority to negotiate binding contracts. It's not that hard to imagine a scenario where that difference becomes relevant in court. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that Facebook had an intern or two somewhere focused on identifying and tracking projects using React and what companies they're owned by, just in case they end up in a conflict with someone and need to say "Hey, are they using anything of ours that can make this go away?"
  - chrisco255 9y ago
    Well, my point was that Microsoft has a very broad patent portfolio, as does Apple, and many other such companies that are using React in production. If they do not fear this patent clause, then I fail to see why your startup would. Especially if your startup has no patents at all (as is the case with most software startups). Apple & Microsoft would have a lot more to lose if they were somehow granting Facebook unlimited access to their patent portfolio just by their usage of React. You think their attorneys would let that fly?

mlsarecmg 9y ago

You can't avoid react because it started a new paradigm. 9 out of 10 frameworks are based on the same principles and native follows suit where even big vendors are changing their strategies for mobile and desktop to align them with reacts principles (react-native, microsofts react-native-windows, reactxp and office fiber, googles kotlin for android, litho, componentkit, etc). Switching from react to something else is sometimes as simple as adding an alias in webpack. If you don't like the license, use preact, inferno, etc. But the idea itself is way too valuable to be in any way affected by petty licensing issues.

Profragile 9y ago
I don't think anyone is against the paradigm. They're against the "no patents against facebook" situation which you can avoid by using else.
threatofrain 9y ago
The paradigm is everywhere, so just use another library that uses that paradigm, like Inferno or Preact, or even something slightly different like Vue if you want.
- chrisco255 9y ago
  The point is those other libraries could be in violation of any patents that Facebook may or may not have with regards to React. Perhaps they have a patent on virtual DOM? That would mean your usage of Inferno, Preact, Vue, or Angular 2+ would violate the patent.
  - mlsarecmg 9y ago
    That would frankly be impossible. All JSX boils down to is h(name, properties, children) and that is literally it. Each reconciler is different, uses another v-dom, etc. If you wanted to patent react, you patent the mere use of functions. And not just that there are about 20 years of fair use of similar principles, even for jsx in particular which evolved from mozillas e4x and otherwise keeps to basic xml markup and mustaches.
    - chrisco255 9y ago
      I would like to think it's impossible. I just have seen crazier things patented before...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click
    - developit 9y ago
      Also impossible because JSX is independent of React. The specification is only subject to a standard Copyright and is released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.
- mlsarecmg 9y ago
  Which is what i said.
  - threatofrain 9y ago
    Oops I didn't read carefully.
thehardsphere 9y ago
As if nobody was ever able to make a user interface before 2013.
madhadron 9y ago
It didn't start a new paradigm. It's a failure to understand functional reactive programming hidden behind a bizarre mix of HTML and JavaScript.

chrisco255 9y ago

If Microsoft's lawyers were okay with React, then I'm pretty sure your startup is okay. https://github.com/Microsoft/react-native-windows https://github.com/Microsoft/react-native-windows

fencepost 9y ago
I'll call that a false equivalency, because only in my wildest dreams can I consider anything I'm working on equivalent to Microsoft. Among the Microsoft-level things I lack I'll count their legal teams, patent portfolio, and negotiating clout. Anything I as a solo or mostly-solo dev would put together to sell would almost certainly be sold to a company less than 0.1% Microsoft's size - even at the 1% level it's just as likely that a company would decide they'd rather just build their own version or get someone to do so as a work for hire. Edit: I'm also mentally picturing scenarios where Facebook's terms might end up tested in court. A developer team using an open-source framework without understanding the legal ramifications is one thing, and a thing done by people not authorized to negotiate binding contracts for the company. A purchase of a company or significant software (not off-the-shelf) on the other hand is by definition done by someone with authority to negotiate binding contracts. It's not that hard to imagine a scenario where that difference becomes relevant in court. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that Facebook had an intern or two somewhere focused on identifying and tracking projects using React and what companies they're owned by, just in case they end up in a conflict with someone and need to say "Hey, are they using anything of ours that can make this go away?"
- chrisco255 9y ago
  Well, my point was that Microsoft has a very broad patent portfolio, as does Apple, and many other such companies that are using React in production. If they do not fear this patent clause, then I fail to see why your startup would. Especially if your startup has no patents at all (as is the case with most software startups). Apple & Microsoft would have a lot more to lose if they were somehow granting Facebook unlimited access to their patent portfolio just by their usage of React. You think their attorneys would let that fly?