26 ms·

Explaining React's license

• grizzles 9y ago
  Facebook's position on this is weird. Any company that wants to use react and avoid liability arising from Facebook's terms can do so easily by incorporating a subsidiary or wholly separate company and paying that company $1 to license the UI built on react. Maybe this is about fencing off Google/Amazon/Alibaba/etc who might be reluctant to do something that would be technically legal but something that a jury might take a dim view of. That seems to been the thesis behind Oracle v Google.
  • rdtsc 9y ago
    Or just use Vue or similar library
  • wolco 9y ago
    Unfortunately the wording covers a subsidiary, agents act on behalf and any interest including financial even in an indirect way.
    • grizzles 9y ago
      Since Facebook grants a license, the worst case scenario is you sue Facebook for infringing your "X" patent, and then they search your website and find a react ui, and then you say oh we bought that off WebKidCo. IANAL but it seems farfetched that a court could/would hold a company bound to such a broad clause for what it's supplier(s) did. Or you could just sue Facebook for using your patent "X" after having first moved the patent into a non practicing entity.
      • chrisco255 9y ago
        This theoretical litigation process with claims & counter-claims against Facebook would cost you millions. Patents are by themselves incredibly expensive to defend. Your "X" patent better be worth tens of millions and Facebook better be deriving millions in value from it, or this is just an exercise in futility.
• throwaway26960 9y ago
  Onto the next Javascript framework!
• thesausageking 9y ago
  > Their decision was not a legal decision about the compatibility of projects with this license. As has always been the case, source code licensed under the Facebook BSD + Patents license can be combined with source code licensed under other open source licenses like BSD, MIT, Apache 2.0, and GPL. What complete, tone deaf newspeak. If a BSD-licensed project uses code with a Facebook BSD license, the project is now Facebook BSD licensed. That means it's incompatible with the BSD license.
  • votepaunchy 9y ago
    The additional Patents clause can simply be disregarded or, if not, then just file a patent lawsuit against Facebook. The plain BSD license does not offer a patent grant so there is no incompatibility. The Apache Software License does grant a patent license [0] (as does GPLv3) so is incompatible with either of these BSD licenses (unless an 'implied' grant is assumed). [0] http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0#patent http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0#patent
  • brianmurphy 9y ago
    Not tone deaf at all. The BSD license explicitly permits reuse in differently licensed software. This is the ultimate disagreement of what software freedom means. GPL people think derivatives of their software should remain free. (the viral nature of GPL) Strong BSD proponents believe the freedom to incorporate the software into non-BSD projects (including closed software) is the ultimate freedom. It sounds like you are more in the copyleft/GPL camp if you are concerned with derivative works remaining compatible with the original license.
  • rhizome 9y ago
    The way I read it, ASF denied FB's BSD+Patents license in a mysterious bureaucratic decision that will cause a lot of pain for companies that use React, while FB's decision to create the BSD+Patents license was an altruistic move designed to benefit the software ecosystem and reduce their patent litigation overhead. I believe FB is at the "pounding on the table" stage.
    • 9y ago
• pdfernhout 9y ago
  Facebook claims BSD+PATENTS is GPL compatible. I'd like to hear what the FSF has to say about that.
  • gstein67 9y ago
    The two copyright-based licenses are compatible, based on pretty much every legal opinion published. Facebook is offering a separate patent license, and that is out-of-scope of the GPL.
    • pdfernhout 9y ago
      I agree the plain BSD 2 and GPL licenses are compatible. The issue here is how the PATENTS file from Facebook reduces an implicit patent grant by the BSD license making BSD+PATENTS into essentially a different license with less permissions than plain BSD. According to the FAQ on the GPLv3: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html "Whenever someone conveys software covered by GPLv3 that they've written or modified, they must provide every recipient with any patent licenses necessary to exercise the rights that the GPL gives them." So, since GPLv3 talks about patents, and the Facebook PATENTS clause reduces the implicit patent grant of BSD, I feel it is in scope for GPLv3. A plain BSD 2.0 license with an implicit patent grant would presumably provide enough patent rights to be compatible with GPLv3. To my reading of the situation, BSD+PATENTS does not seem to provide enough patent rights to comply with GPLv3 (because of the one-sided retaliation clause of Facebook's PATENTS file). The GPLv2 is a different story which is less clear to me. In section 7 GPLv2 says: "If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program." So, because some of your downstream users might not have a valid patent grant from Facebook if they sue Facebook for infringing their patents, does the last sentence imply you can't distribute the combined BSD+PATENTS and GPLv2 code?
• russellbeattie 9y ago
  Hmm... "You don't like it? Go jump in a lake." Is that really an explanation?
  • ergo14 9y ago
    Well generally React users seem to not care. So I don't blame FB. I guess the clause could be rewritten to be more like what Google/Apache 2.0 does - then everyone would be happy.
    • pdfernhout 9y ago
      React was originally under the Apache2 license. So is this a bit of a bait-and-switch? https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/75897c2dcd1dd3a6ca46284dd37e13d22b4b16b4/LICENSE https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/75897c2dcd1dd3a6ca462... Also, could that original patent grant in the original license apply to later versions of React?
      • wolco 9y ago
        No that is a gpl concept.
      • hajile 9y ago
        I don't think so, but you could fork from v11 (0.11 in old naming) as it was the last full release to use Apache.
• fhrow4484 9y ago
  This is in reply to the Apache Software Foundation decision to list the BSD + Patents license as a Category-X license. - Facebook gets attacked by meritless patent litigation - Facebook creates the BSD + Patents license, which has the following effect : > The patent grant says that if you're going to use the software we've released under it, you lose the patent license from us if you sue us for patent infringement. - Facebook believe that 'if this license were widely adopted, it could actually reduce meritless litigation for all adopters' I understand Facebook's position here, surely this will decrease meritless litigation, but what about meritful litigation? Let's take an example, a small startup has a cool technology but also all their front-end is using React. That cool technology is patented. Now if 'Facebook or any of its subsidiaries or corporate affiliates' infringe on that patent, that startup won't be able to sue them without first re-writing the entire front-end to not use React. I don't think software should be patent-able in the first place anyways but it seems the situation above would still be true if that startup sues them for what they believe is a completely legitimate hardware patent. Also, IANAL, I'm wondering what even is the definition of a 'corporate affiliate' here? Who is a 'corporate affiliate' of FB? Finally, what 'patent license' are they referring to in this post anyways ? The react's PATENT clause (https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/b8ba8c83f318b84e42933f6928f231dc0918f864/PATENTS https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/b8ba8c83f318b84e42933...) says they're providing the React software License, and they revoke this software license if you sue them.
  • bpicolo 9y ago
    > without first re-writing the entire front-end to not use React Do note this isn't necessarily the case, because nobody has yet found a patent that covers React.
    • fhrow4484 9y ago
      This is what I find confusing, the blog post mentions a patent license that you are granted, but as you say, nobody is aware of any patent covering React. React's doesn't seem to use any novel technique in the field of CS. But https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/b8ba8c83f318b84e42933f6928f231dc0918f864/PATENTS https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/b8ba8c83f318b84e42933... , the way I read it says they grant you a license to to "make, have made, use, sell, offer to sell, import, and otherwise transfer" the React Software. They don't seem to give you a license to any patent.
• Steeeve 9y ago
  > We've been looking for ways around this and have reached out to ASF to see if we could try to work with them, but have come up empty. This, to me, is a significant warning sign. I was leery of the React license to begin with. But the community at large had _almost_ convinced me that it was nothing to worry about. Unfortunately, Facebook's position as stated here is clearly that the license is weaponized for a reason. I think it's irresponsible to leverage software with this license without clear guidance from legal and corporate overlords stating that it's OK.
  • votepaunchy 9y ago
    The fallback to BSD+Patents is simply BSD and should be evaluated by legal and corporate likewise.
    • jnbiche 9y ago
      "Fallback"? Are you referring to Preact?
      • votepaunchy 9y ago
        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.
        • pdfernhout 9y ago
          This suggests an implicit grant is better than an explicit more limited grant: http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Implicit_patent_licence http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Implicit_patent_licence From there: In 2005, Dan Ravicher explained[2] that, in the USA, recipients of software under the GNU GPL version 2 receive an implicied patent grant, based on the following US case law. * De Forest Radio, 273 U.S. 236 (1927) "No formal granting of a license is necessary in order to give it effect. Any language used by the owner of the patent, or any conduct on his part exhibited to another from which that other may properly infer that the owner consents to his use of the patent in making or using it, or selling it, upon which the other acts, constitutes a license." * Hewlett - Packard Co. v . Repeat - O-Type Stencil Mfg. Corp. , Inc., 123 F. 3d 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1997). "Generally, when a seller sells a product without restriction, it in effect promises the purchaser that in exchange for the price paid, it will not interfere wit h the purchaser's full enjoyment of the product purchased. The buyer has an implied license under any patents of the seller that dominate the product or any uses of the product to which the parties might reasonably contemplate the product will be put." * Bottom Line Mgmt., Inc. v. Pan Man, Inc., 228 F. 3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2000) "Unless the parties provide otherwise, the purchaser of a patented article has an implied license not only to use and sell it, but also to repair it to enable it to function properly. This implied license covers both the original purchaser of the article and all subsequent purchasers"
• throwgoog452 9y ago
  People used to say that the GPL was illegal, unacceptable, immoral, and all sorts of other things. Then, gradually, everyone started using it, and copyleft became an acceptable software licensing strategy. I hope that BSD + Patents also achieves gradual acceptability.
  • seanmcdirmid 9y ago
    People started using the GPL because it works fine for software that isn't distributed to consumers, e.g. on servers. Those uses have subverted the entire intent of he license, however.
    • chii 9y ago
      > Those uses have subverted the entire intent of the license You're reading too much into the intent of the license. GPLv2 being used on servers is a valid use case. Tivoization is indeed subverting the intent of GPLv2, which is one of the reason for GPLv3. But in the case of Tivoization, you _are_ distributing the code to end users, rather than just running it on their behalf, and hence, in my eyes, violates the intent of GPL (that end users you distribute your software to should be allowed to modify the software). Hosted software isn't like tivoization, in that the host doesn't distribute, and so no GPL issues whatsoever.
  • wolco 9y ago
    The more conditions we apply the less usage it will get. But adding conditions like everyone can share in the changes provides a different value and encourages more changes. GPL works because it forces the source code to remain open allowing everyone to enjoy all new changes. BSD works because you are free to repackage and resell with bsd code. This code can be used in an existing product.
• danjoc 9y ago
  This is a defensive answer. Facebook doesn't even enumerate the React related patents, so you're left guessing about that. At the very least, they should maintain and up to date list of patents granted. What do they have to hide?
  • true_religion 9y ago
    Probably the fact that they have no patents with regards to React...
  • gstein67 9y ago
    With patents, it is usually best to not show your hand. Patent holders never publish the list of patents that read on their software.
• adamnemecek 9y ago
  Move to cycle.js. It's a better framework anyway https://cycle.js.org https://cycle.js.org
• tbrock 9y ago
  Isn't the style of programming react imposes (unidirectional data flow and component composition) the real innovation for front end applications here? Sure the dom diffing technology was hot at the time it came out but it's basically is a commodity item at this point. In that sense, the open source community can (and should) build multiple react clones that are licensed more liberally. Sure, I'm annoyed by the licensing of React too, I think abou it a lot. But does it really matter that Facebook won't budge on this? The technology is out there whether it's React or not.
  • krirken 9y ago
    Indeed, preact [1] and and inferno [2] are both MIT Licensed. [1] https://github.com/developit/preact/blob/master/LICENSE https://github.com/developit/preact/blob/master/LICENSE [2] https://github.com/infernojs/inferno/blob/master/LICENSE.md https://github.com/infernojs/inferno/blob/master/LICENSE.md
  • jnbiche 9y ago
    I agree, and I for one will start using Preact and/or Inferno henceforth.
  • ricardobeat 9y ago
    React is not concerned at all with state management (other than local state), and there are decades of prior art for component systems.
  • zwily 9y ago
    I'd agree with you, but... React Native. :(
• tarr11 9y ago
  I wonder how much BSD + patents actually diminishes lawsuits for Facebook. Is React that widespread? What happens if you stop using React, and replace it with a clone like Preact? I also wonder if this will hold up in court, or is purely a defensive measure.
  • gstein67 9y ago
    Just say one, for discussion purposes. One is likely worth the (minimal?) loss of Goodwill/combinatorics/bundling with their licensing choice.
  • rhizome 9y ago
    If it succeeds as FUD, they'll never have to defend it.
• abhisuri97 9y ago
  ELI5 anyone? My basic understanding is if you use React and decide to sue FB for patent infringement down the line, FB can countersue(?) bc they revoke your grant to use the patent upon you suing them. But what _exactly_ constitutes using React? Of course using the library is one thing, but what about using some other library that installs React as some dependency? Does using JSX also count as using "React"? I just feel that what exactly constitutes using React is very vague esp considering there are many non-FB tools that use "React" (and associated technologies, eg the idea of Virtual DOM) in some form or another.
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  • ufo 9y ago
    IANAL but... > but what about using some other library that installs React as some dependency? I think that still counts as "using react". > Does using JSX also count as using "React"? I think that if you use a custom JSX compiler instead of the one that comes with React then you could be clean. JSX itself is just a programming language and cannot be copyrighted. > I just feel that what exactly constitutes using React is very vague esp I don't think that is vague, actually. In the end, what matters is if the whole system includes React source code in some way or another. > and associated technologies, eg the idea of Virtual DOM Associated technologies are not covered by copyright. They could possibly be covered by patents but that would be a whole different can of worms.
  • wolco 9y ago
    jsx is defininity not owned by react
• eridius 9y ago
  > We've been looking for ways around this and have reached out to ASF to see if we could try to work with them, but have come up empty. There's a pretty obvious solution to this: relicense React. The fact that Facebook isn't even considering that is a pretty strong indication that they "weaponized" their license on purpose. > To this point, though, we haven't done a good job of explaining the reasons behind our BSD + Patents license. I think we already understand the reasoning behind it. > As our business has become successful, we've become a larger target for meritless patent litigation. And the solution you chose stops merit-ful litigation as well. > We respect third party IP, including patents, and expect others to respect our IP too. Clearly you don't, because you've intentionally designed a license to allow you carte blanche to violate other companies' patents if they're dependent enough upon React to not be able to easily stop using it.
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  • cbuq 9y ago
    They need to stop referring to React as open source software. This is proprietary source code. > We believe that if this license were widely adopted, it could actually reduce meritless litigation for all adopters, and we want to work with others to explore this possibility. They do not give a pathway for litigation with merit. This is a patent weapon.
    • kbenson 9y ago
      No company assumes a meritorious lawsuit against them exists. Planning for it is ridiculous. Don't take that as a defense of this type of license though.
      • cbuq 9y ago
        I agree, in a perfect word, I could take Facebook's word that "We respect third party IP, including patents, and expect others to respect our IP too." I just can't unsee the way this theoretically could allow Facebook to partake in patent infringement without fear of retribution.
• spacetexas 9y ago
  Disappointed to see no forward upfront stance on what Facebook will do if someone sues them for a patent infringement unrelated to React in any way. Will note though that if Facebook does choose to revoke a license on the basis of getting sued for something unrelated it will definitely reflect poorly on FB in the developer community and reduce React's adoption.
  • kbenson 9y ago
    > Disappointed to see no forward upfront stance on what Facebook will do if someone sues them for a patent infringement unrelated to React in any way. Well, they've specifically related React if it's in use, so the only case where it's not related is if isn't being used by the plaintiff. In a similar vein, people are wondering what Facebook will do with patent infringement suits that do have merit, to which I ask, when's the last time a company defending a patent suit stated the plaintiff's case had merit.
• valarauca1 9y ago
  TLDR: - They confirm Apache's legal reading of the BSD + Patents. - They deny the part about Facebook being able to steal your IP because Facebook isn't like that. - They refuse to codify changes to enforce Facebook isn't like that - We therefore must assume Facebook is like that.
• Eridrus 9y ago
  I think the reasoning that this will protect them against frivolous lawsuits is pretty poor; you only need a patent grant if you're actually building software. Patent trolls don't build anything so they have no need for patent grants.
  • jaxondu 9y ago
    Facebook most likely is guarding it for strategic reason. My guess is it will built something like Expo into its Facebook/Messenger app, then it can have its own native app, games store without going through Apple. This is something WeChat already is running called mini-apps.
  • coldtea 9y ago
    >Patent trolls don't build anything so they have no need for patent grants. You'd be surprised. Patent trolls can have all forms, not just a only-suing company. Some company that has failed as a startup, but which holds 1-2 patents might decide to turn into patent-trolling to make a quick back while it dies. Think also of companies like SCO.
    • Eridrus 9y ago
      > Some company that has failed as a startup, but which holds 1-2 patents might decide to turn into patent-trolling to make a quick back while it dies. If the startup is dead it should be trivial to transfer the patents to a separate entity and then sue from that entity, making counter-suits irrelevant. This only has an affect on companies which are a going concern. Companies who plan to make litigation part of their strategy can pretty easily just not use React. This does the most harm to companies who were not planning to come into conflict with Facebook, and then do.
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
• beager 9y ago
  As I understand the asymmetry in the BSD+patents license, the real issue here is that usage of React significantly weakens you with respect to mounting a defense against Facebook for infringing upon your own patents or IP, a possibility which, given the stark example of Instagram Stories, is plainly plausible. (This is not to say that Instagram Stories is patent theft, but rather a propensity to copy ideas wholesale). Were Facebook to amend that license to soften the criteria for revocation of the license grant in cases of suits against Facebook for infringement, this outrage might just go away. But as it stands now, Facebook stands to exercise an ability to infringe on others' patents for monetary gain so long as the patent holder uses React in deployment. It would be easy to weaponize this arrangement, and you have to assume that any fiduciary would consider it. More broadly, this is a good case to be made against software patents in general.
  • chrisco255 9y ago
    Not really. Not necessarily. Patents aren't all created equal. The economic value you derive from using Facebook's open-source patent grants is probably not going to be higher than whatever patent suit you're bringing against Facebook (if you deem it necessary and have the millions to wage such a war).
• talkingtab 9y ago
  My worry is that the BSD+patent license puts FB in the position where they are able violate valid patents that another company hold. If that company is using React, they will have a strong incentive not to pursue their claims against FB because it means they would have to rewrite their code. Is this a valid concern?
• joobus 9y ago
  The Facebook patents license, https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/PATENTS https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/PATENTS , says: > The license granted hereunder will terminate, automatically and without notice, if you (or any of your subsidiaries, corporate affiliates or agents) initiate directly or indirectly, or take a direct financial interest in, any Patent Assertion: ... (ii) against any party if such Patent Assertion arises in whole or in part from any software, technology, product or service of Facebook or any of its subsidiaries or corporate affiliates, I always thought the main problem was this part, where you basically lose the license or your IP if Facebook ever decides to become your competitor, e.g. you start a company with a react front-end that does X, and then Facebook decides to directly copy your business. You have no recourse against Facebook, because if you sue them for infringing your IP, you lose the ability to use the React license.
  • nojvek 9y ago
    If Snapchat used React, Facebook would kill them to death because Snapchat couldn’t do much. They already mass copied snapchat’s Features. Any sane aspiring developer would know not to give Facebook that much power.
    • neospice 9y ago
      Is SNAP pursuing litigation in retaliation to this? If not, then would it have mattered if they used React?
  • chrisco255 9y ago
    Does the additional patent grant in the Facebook BSD+Patents license terminate if I create a competing product? No. Does the additional patent grant in the Facebook BSD+Patents license terminate if I sue Facebook for something other than patent infringement? No. Does the additional patent grant in the Facebook BSD+Patents license terminate if Facebook sues me for patent infringement first, and then I respond with a patent counterclaim against Facebook? No, unless your patent counterclaim is related to Facebook's software licensed under the Facebook BSD+Patents license. Does termination of the additional patent grant in the Facebook BSD+Patents license cause the copyright license to also terminate? No. From: https://code.facebook.com/pages/850928938376556 https://code.facebook.com/pages/850928938376556
• molecule 9y ago
  Discussion of this topic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15050705 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15050705
• jwingy 9y ago
  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.
  • carussell 9y ago
    > 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 patent suits against anyone, because it means they are now violating the licenses of every piece of FOSS they're currently using. (I'm relying on the assumption that there's no entity that could perform an audit right now and conclude that there's not a single piece of FOSS underpinning their products/services/infrastructure.) Licenses like Apache 2.0, MPL2, etc all have a "MAD" policy wrt patents, but they all have a gaping hole in their strategy. The React license patches this hole in a really clever way--probably the cleverest thing since the GPL's invention of copyleft to hack copyright law by using it against itself. It's really disappointing to see people's sense of disdain for Facebook overpower their ability to appreciate how clever the React license is. Addendum from the last time [1] I commented: "FWIW, I don't use React, I don't want to, I'm not a Facebook employee, and in fact I think the world would be a lot better off with Facebook having less influence than they do today. But that doesn't change how weird it is to keep seeing comments like [those that frame the React terms in a negative light]". 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14780358 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14780358
    • losvedir 9y ago
      In fact, this is explicitly part of their reasoning, from the blog post linked to in the GitHub comment here: > We believe that if this license were widely adopted, it could actually reduce meritless litigation for all adopters, and we want to work with others to explore this possibility.
• slackoverflower 9y ago
  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).
  • bdcravens 9y ago
    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.
    • inopinatus 9y ago
      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.
      • bdcravens 9y ago
        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.
    • haeffin 9y ago
      They put out a facebook post at about the same time that is something like a press release though.
    • Xoros 9y ago
      The post linked is from 4 hours ago. So yes it's a late Friday statement. https://code.facebook.com/posts/112130496157735/explaining-react-s-license/ https://code.facebook.com/posts/112130496157735/explaining-r...
      • 9y ago
• jwingy 9y ago
  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 of other open source projects.
  • pdfernhout 9y ago
    I completely agree that the Facebook BSD+PATENTS license is antithetical to the goal and spirit of open source software. And that is why the Apache Foundation rejected it it. I'd like to see more statements by more groups like the FSF and OSI on that.
• RyanShook 9y ago
  I have my doubts about the enforceability of BSD+Patents in a courtroom setting. I think it's an intimidation play on the part of Facebook to keep large players from profiting off of their IP.
• gstein67 9y ago
  There is a lot of confusion with regards to one point: the Apache Software Foundation did not make a request for a license change. The Foundation does not presuppose to know how others should license their products. That is those others' choice. The Foundation does have policies on what licenses can be used, within the Foundation's projects. But that is for our projects, and not the same as pushing back against license holders. So please. Stop with the meme of "Facebook rejected the Foundation's request". Not true. Facebook made a business choice, and the Apache Software Foundation will make its own choices. The request came from one our projects' committers. Please do not confuse who speaks for whom.
  • devdoomari 9y ago
    it's not 'rejection' that's bothering ppl... most ppl don't care about 'rejection' whether it happened or not.
• ralmidani 9y ago
  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 patents, copyrights, or anything else. I am also more likely to benefit from potential patents contained in a project like React than I am to ever 1) Own a patent. 2) Have a company use that patent in a way I find harmful and offensive. 3) Have the resources to sue an internet giant. So for me, it's probably worth it to use React, although I can understand why others insist on a more cautious approach. One thing Facebook could do that would inspire confidence (not to mention make the company a champion of free innovation) is to enumerate which patents the company owns and release all of them under the Defensive Patent License [0]. Such a move would require a lot of courage, but Facebook is large enough and entrenched enough that they would probably gain much more than they could potentially lose. [0] https://defensivepatentlicense.org https://defensivepatentlicense.org
  • falcolas 9y ago
    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?
    • ralmidani 9y ago
      Facebook doesn't deny you the freedoms of using the software without restriction, studying it, modifying it, and distributing it (with or without your modifications). I personally wish FB would release even more of their platforms as free software, preferably under (A/L)GPL3 or MPL 2 or Apache 2. But we do not live in a perfect world. Even the folks at FSF made some compromises regarding the wording of the patent provisions in the GPL3 family, in order to get more companies to adopt the licenses [0]. I am sure the folks at FB know the first time they abuse the patent stipulations, a lot of people using React will jump ship. [0] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/compromise.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/compromise.html
• JoshMnem 9y ago
  I'm not sure if React (and the other projects that contain the PATENTS file) will survive the backlash to this in the long run. Vue.js is rapidly climbing in popularity, and Elm is probably going to go mainstream in 2018. There are alternatives like Mithril and Ember too.
  • threatofrain 9y ago
    Elm going mainstream?! What a prediction!
    • devdoomari 9y ago
      yeah I doubt about elm, but vue is definitely catching up.
      • JoshMnem 9y ago
        Why do you doubt it? I'm pretty sure that Elm will do it. :)
        • threatofrain 9y ago
          Are there any big projects currently written in Elm?
          • JoshMnem 9y ago
            What do you consider big? Elm is still in the early stages. https://www.pivotaltracker.com/blog/Elm-pivotal-tracker/ https://www.pivotaltracker.com/blog/Elm-pivotal-tracker/
            • threatofrain 9y ago
              I'm curious to look at any big and open Elm app, to look at how a big project feels like, especially one that probably has to interact with other JS. I ask only because a precursory search on GitHub revealed little.
• kevinflo 9y ago
  I love love love love love react as a technology, but this is just awful. I believe any developer not on Facebook's payroll still contributing to React or React native at this point has a moral obligation to stop. I personally feel like such a fool for not taking all this seriously before the ASF gave me a wakeup call. React is a trojan horse into the open source community that Facebook purposely and maliciously steered over time to deepen their war chest. Maybe that's an overblown take, but they had a perfect opportunity here to prove me wrong and they didn't. The defensive cover they present here feels so paper thin. Even if we paint all of their actions in the most favorable possible light, and even if the clause is a paper tiger as some have claimed, it doesn't matter. This is not how open source should work. We should not have to debate for years if a project's license is radioactive. Especially individual devs like myself who just want to use a great tool. We should be able to just use it, because it's open and that's what open means. This is so much worse than closed. It's closed masquerading as open.
  • devdoomari 9y ago
    +1 on this. I'm going for Preact (https://github.com/developit/preact https://github.com/developit/preact) for React alternative.
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    • deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    • khuey 9y ago
      If React really is covered by patents Facebook has then Preact is likely infringing on them since it does the same things in similar ways. And Preact doesn't come with a patent grant from Facebook at all.
      • reconbot 9y ago
        We learned from Java and Google that you can't patent and API. It's not forked from React it's an alternative.
• haeffin 9y ago
  > I like that we clearly include a patent license in our repo. IMO it would be nice if more companies would choose this route too. I don't get this. The Apache2 license also has a section on patents ...
  • CodeWriter23 9y ago
    Yes. And it says you lose the rights Apache granted you if you litigate any of the patents granted by Apache. Facebook's says you lose license to their patents if you litigate or even have shares in a company that litigates against Facebook for ANY patent. It's completely different. And toxic.
• antoncohen 9y ago
  Facebook's license is no more dangerous than regular MIT or BSD-style licenses. If you are OK with using MIT or BSD licensed software you should be OK with using Facebook's BSD + Patents software. Here is why: MIT and BSD licenses don't have any patent grants, unlike the Apache 2.0 license. If you use MIT/BSD open source software, and some functionality of that software is patented by the author, you could be sued for patent infringement. If you use software licensed under Facebook's BSD + Patents license, and the author of the software (Facebook) has patented technology in the software (which AFAIK they don't), the author CANNOT sue you. Now if you turn around and use the author for patent infringement for something else, you lose the patent grant that came with the software, and you are back to a normal plain old BSD license. The BSD + Patents license is strictly better than the regular BSD/MIT licenses. You lose no rights, you may gain some patent protection. Major software like Ruby (BSD), Rails (MIT), and FreeBSD (BSD) use licenses without patent grants. Entire businesses are built on top of these pieces of software, e.g., GitHub (Ruby and Rails) and a lot of commercial hardware built on FreeBSD (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_products_based_on_FreeBSD https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_products_based_on_Free...). Read the patent grant for yourself: https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/PATENTS https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/PATENTS
  • hajile 9y ago
    They have implicit patent grants while Facebook's does not. http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Implicit_patent_licence http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Implicit_patent_licence
    • antoncohen 9y ago
      I don't see how that changes anything. If you sue Facebook you lose the explicit patent grant, but you are still left with a BSD license that allows "redistribution and use in source and binary forms", so you still have the implicit patent grant.
      • rockdoe 9y ago
        This doesn't work if there's an explicit grant. You can't pretend the PATENTS file isn't there.
• web007 9y ago
  I don't understand ASF's position on this. How is FB-BSD+P different from CDDL 1.1, which includes section 6.2 regarding termination of patent rights in the event of a suit?
  • Steeeve 9y ago
    ASF's license limits it's scope. ASF software cannot carry dependencies on licenses that have wider scope than their license. In addition to the scope, the FB license is very one-sided. As such, ASF decided to disallow FB licensed dependencies. One particular ASF project did not have an alternative, so they asked FB to re-license. FB agreed to do so. Because it was easy, and because the positive talk surrounding FB's license seemed to intimate that FB's intention was the same as ASF's license intention, they requested FB to relicense react so that it too could be included as a dependency on ASF projects. Faced with making a decision, FB determined that their licensing strategy associated with litigation was more important than their ability to be included in ASF projects. A lot of eyes were watching the request, many hopeful that the FB decision would justify and clarify their interpretation of the FB license and it's intentions. FB disappointed them though, and basically said "bugger off if you don't like it. We'll lose people, but we don't think it will be that many." Judging from this discussion - and the fact that HN is one of the most pro-react communities around - this decision will not play out kindly and could be the death-knell of react's position as a major force in UI development.
• DannyBee 9y ago
  So, i feel for them, having watched Google's open source projects be targeted by patent trolls in the past. But i really don't think this is the way forward. A few things: 1. If you want to suggest you are doing this as part of an attempt to avoid meritless litigation, you really should give concrete examples of that happening. Otherwise, it comes off as a smoke screen. 2. The assertion is that if widely adopted, it would avoid lots of meritless litigation. This is a theoretically possible outcome. Here's another theoretically possible outcome of wide adoption of this kind of very broad termination language: Facebook is able to use other people's technology at will because nobody can afford to not use their stuff, and no startup that they decide to take technology from, and say "no more facebook/react/etc for you" could realistically launch an effective lawsuit before they died. Assume for a second you think Facebook is not likely to do this. If widely adopted, someone will do it. Nobody should have to worry about this possibility when considering whether to adopt particular open source software. (there are other theoretical outcomes, good and bad). It's also worth pointing out: None of this is a new discussion or argument. All of the current revisions of the major licenses (Apache v2, GPLv3) went through arguments about whether to use these kinds of broader termination clauses (though not quite as one sided and company focused), and ultimately decided not to, for (IMHO good) reasons. I'm a bit surprised this isn't mentioned or discussed anywhere. These kinds of clauses are not a uniform net positive, they are fairly bimodal.
  • fhrow4484 9y ago
    That's a good point, especially since the concrete examples won't possibly be about patent trolls. Why would patent trolls (aka Non practicing entities) care about loosing rights "to make, have made, use, sell, offer to sell, import, and otherwise transfer the [React] Software". (as defined in https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/b8ba8c83f318b84e42933f6928f231dc0918f864/PATENTS https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/b8ba8c83f318b84e42933...)?
    • chrisco255 9y ago
      Look at Oracle v. Google...that was a mess. Samsung v. Apple...also a mess. Not all patent litigation is from trolls alone.
• 0xbear 9y ago
  Hopefully it'll take all those half assed React Native apps with it.
• paradite 9y ago
  /s Angular is terrible. React is trojan horse. Vue is developed by Chinese. /s And I honestly just want a decent framework to write JavaScript. Maybe the framework war is just getting started after all. Edit: I'm just summarizing and projecting the sentiments around the popular frameworks and wondering about the future, not sure why I got so much hate...
• RomanPushkin 9y ago
  Anyone knows what are consequences of ban from Apache Software Foundation? Okay, it has X-Cat exclusion by August, 31 (https://react-etc.net/entry/apache-foundation-bans-use-of-facebook-bsd-patents-licensed-libraries-like-react-js https://react-etc.net/entry/apache-foundation-bans-use-of-fa...) and what will happen after that?
  • gtirloni 9y ago
    https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html "Can Apache projects distribute components under prohibited licenses? Apache projects cannot distribute any such components. This means that no source code can be from Category X and that any convenience binaries produced may not include such contents. As with the previous question on platforms, the component can be relied on if the component's license terms do not affect the Apache product's licensing. For example, using a GPL'ed tool during the build is OK, however including GPL'ed source code is not"
  • gstein67 9y ago
    Note that this only applies to projects from the Apache Software Foundation. Its policies do not affect outside projects, including those using the ALv2. After August 31, no Apache projects can make a release that has a hard dependency/requirement on the FB/BSD+Patents license (same as for all other licenses described as Cat-X). Older releases will remain in the archives, but no new releases with such dependencies.
• itsbits 9y ago
  I am no pro in understanding these licensing issue. Can someone help me how this affects if i) ReactJS is used in a company/organisation for their proprietor software? ii) ReactJS is used in a company/organisation for their distributed licensing software? iii) ReactJS is used in a company/organisation for a software which is opensourced?
  • rockdoe 9y ago
    If you use React you basically can't sue Facebook for infringing your patents, so it is giving them a free pass on your IP.
    • gstein67 9y ago
      Of course you can sue them. It just comes with consequences.
• bsimpson 9y ago
  > like some other large companies do and only release software that isn't used in our most successful products Closure Compiler [1], GWT [2], and protobufs [3] would like to have a word... I realize they said "some" large companies, but it seems like there's plenty of precedent for successful tech companies to release core infrastructure as open source. [1] https://developers.google.com/closure/compiler/ https://developers.google.com/closure/compiler/ [2] http://www.gwtproject.org/ http://www.gwtproject.org/ [3] https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/ https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/
• tuxracer 9y ago
  Just as a thought experiment if every piece of software had a similar clause in their license it would mark the end of software patents. Isn't this what we actually want more of? Isn't _that_ actually the moral high ground?
  • JoshMnem 9y ago
    If that were Facebook's goal, why wouldn't they just team up with a few other large companies and lobby for abolishing software patents in the US?
    • sanxiyn 9y ago
      I actually think this is Facebook's goal. As for your question, I think they aren't trying to abolish software patents in the US because they judge (IMO correctly) that it is unlikely to succeed.
      • JoshMnem 9y ago
        That seems highly unlikely, considering the way Facebook operates.
• neilparikh 9y ago
  What I don't really understand is if they're worried about patent trolls, how would this have any effect at all? Patent trolls are companies that don't create anything, and just sue with their patent portfolio instead, so why would they care that they can't use react patents anymore?
• jjm 9y ago
  This is the kind of thing that makes devs start new projects that look really close to projects that run this course. You know, just to spite this act.
• Scaevolus 9y ago
  Almost all of Facebook's "open source" code has the same PATENTS file, which makes them toxic if you can imagine a future where Facebook infringes one of your patents: https://github.com/search?p=5&q=org%3Afacebook+filename%3APATENTS&type=Code&utf8=%E2%9C%93 https://github.com/search?p=5&q=org%3Afacebook+filename%3APA... This includes things far outside the React ecosystem: - Flow (JS type checker, like TypeScript) - prepack (JS optimizing transpiler) - a bunch of Android/iOS UI/debugging frameworks, - all their GraphQL libraries (server/client) - their machine learning work (mostly targeting Torch) - Reason (statically typed programming language that transpiles to JS/OCaml) - ZSTD, a highly competitive compression algorithm. Disclaimer: I work at Google on Kubernetes (which is Apache licensed). This is my personal opinion. I am frustrated with software with trivially incompatible licenses.
  • sanxiyn 9y ago
    I am very happy to report that ZSTD removed PATENTS clause: https://github.com/facebook/zstd/pull/801 https://github.com/facebook/zstd/pull/801
    • rockdoe 9y ago
      This is huge.
      • markyuckerberg 9y ago
        Welcome to the "folks who miss the forest for the trees" club.
        • coldtea 9y ago
          Welcome to the over-reaction party. 3 years from now, most startups and companies will still be using React as they did for the last 5 years that the same terms held.
          • markyuckerberg 9y ago
• roadbeats 9y ago
  Does MIT license work for Apache in this case ? If yes, they can easily switch to Preact; https://preactjs.com/ https://preactjs.com/
  • gstein67 9y ago
    Yes, it works just fine. Many projects at Apache rely on MIT-licensed code, and I know that several of the Apache projects are looking towards Preact as a replacement for their dependency upon React.
• JoshMnem 9y ago
  I'm not sure if React (and the other projects that contain the PATENTS file) will survive the backlash to this in the long run. Vue.js is rapidly climbing in popularity, and Elm is probably going to go mainstream in 2018. There are alternatives like Mithril and Ember too.
  • eugeneionesco 9y ago
    This such a non-issue and affects very small part of those that use React it won't affect the popularity at all.
    • rockdoe 9y ago
      This is true if only because sane people aren't using React exactly because of this issue.
  • scarlac 9y ago
    The only way I see people stop using React is if there's an example of a company being counter-sued by Facebook as a result of the license or something like that.
    • JoshMnem 9y ago
      Many companies already can't use React. The numbers will increase.
  • delambo 9y ago
    The stats don't really suggest that vue is rapidly climbing in popularity: https://npm-stat.com/charts.html?package=react&package=vue&package=mithril&package=ember&package=elm&from=2015-01-01&to=2017-08-19 https://npm-stat.com/charts.html?package=react&package=vue&p... While popularity might not have anything to do with your use case, it still means a lot in terms of ecosystem, tooling, training, support and documentation.
    • JoshMnem 9y ago
• rsgrafx 9y ago
  What advice would you say to someone who just who's only about 6 months in ( learning React ) ? A. Its not been that long.. walk away and learn something else. B. If you've put in the time try to get something out of it. C. I don't know what the whole fuss is about your not going to be building anything worth facebook's time anyway.
  • chrisco255 9y ago
    If this is for your own personal projects or your startup...you should just keep using React. Seriously, unless you've got millions of dollars to bring a patent suit against Facebook (do you even have any patents to defend?), this should not even be on your radar. You should be focused on building great product and execution: not patent litigation.
    • rsgrafx 9y ago
      Thanks for clearing that up.
    • rockdoe 9y ago
      Don't ever hope of selling your business if it takes off though. The above may not apply to your potential buyers.
      • chrisco255 9y ago
        I really fail to see that. With Microsoft, Apple, Salesforce, Yahoo, Amazon, and many other big names using React in production...Chances are the acquiring company is already using React in some form. Furthermore, the value of your company is not in which front end framework you choose, it's in your distribution and product value to end users. If you really needed to rewrite your front-end in Preact (a drop-in replacement for React) or Vue, in order to satisfy a buyer, you could easily do so.
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• rakibtg 9y ago
  This is pathetic and breaks my heart. Expecting something good from thieves is not very practical, Facebook the company started by stealing others dream. This days if you take a look at them, they won't let grow any other app for any cost. They bought instagram, whatsapp where they already was providing such feature but due to their earlybird list. Also instead of contributing few tweaks into NPM they made a clone of NPM called Yarn, so funny. Instead of contributing changes to PHP they made a clone of PHP called HackLang, i am laughing laughter :D Facebook is a proven bad actor for all open source projects, and its time to be aware. One possible solution is to ban facebook from using any open source projects with a new license. One day we will going to have F-Git (a copied version of git with some tweaks by facebook) Snapchat denied to become a part of their monopoly cycle, they made a 100% clone of the product in facebooks every fucking platform. As a software engineer i found it very illegal and unethical, every maker should have good ethics, thats why facebook was unable to invent anything other than Poke feature on facebook itself. Shame If i were working at facebook i would definitely switch the company to better one, who won't force me to copy others. However, i am upset, because the technology that i loved most was just a typical facebook product comes with hidden payloads. I would definitely stay 100% away from all facebook products. It also gives us a free lesson how a evil a tech company could be. Alternatives: My personal list of alternatives are, React = Vue JS React Native = Native Script All i can do is this: https://twitter.com/rakibtg/status/892784442476904449 https://twitter.com/rakibtg/status/892784442476904449
  • krowel 9y ago
    R.I.P
    • buleklproof 9y ago
      RIP Facebook
  • davnicwil 9y ago
    > One day we are going to have F-git Funnily enough, their source control is actually a counter example to your assertions here. Facebook reportedly don't use git but rather mercurial, and seemingly have contributed significantly to that project. See this for example https://code.facebook.com/posts/218678814984400/scaling-mercurial-at-facebook/ https://code.facebook.com/posts/218678814984400/scaling-merc... Note, I don't work at Facebook or have any affiliation or knowledge of how they operate, I'm just taking the contents of this blog post at face value.
• opensports 9y ago
  The whole ecosystem of amazing people and companies that helped build React is jeopardized, which is such a sad waste of code, development time, late nights, and humanity! Please think of long term gains and not exploding software licenses. There's already enough pain going round in the world.
• bakli 9y ago
  Does anyone have experience with https://preactjs.com/ https://preactjs.com/? Is it really the same (component wise)?
  • hobofan 9y ago
    Yeah, I recently replaced React with Preact in compat mode, without problems.
• digitalzombie 9y ago
  Damn glad I left web dev 3 years or so ago. It was ember vs angular. I was like I'm out, going for data science. While on the side line I've witness: Angular was winning until Google made a new framework and named it Angular 2. React took over until people find out their license is a trojan horse. Now what? emberjs? Angular 3 (oh wait wtf it's 4)? Jeez, front end is a mess of wild west. Yes, I understand the value in keeping up to date and continuously studying but the rate that frontend is going it is stupid.
• nkkollaw 9y ago
  Can this problem easily be solved by avoiding to sue Facebook? If I understand the issue correctly, there's a clause in their license that says the license is revoked if you sue them. How risky is this for regular usage?
• ap46 9y ago
  Way to close a debate.
• wdb 9y ago
  It's similar to the line "We can create apps or products that offer features and services similar to your app." that's part of the agreement for using the Facebook SDK. It's mostly a one way street with Facebook.
• sandGorgon 9y ago
  Even worrying - Caffe2 is licensed under the same terms. https://github.com/caffe2/caffe2/blob/master/PATENTS https://github.com/caffe2/caffe2/blob/master/PATENTS . This really makes Tensorflow the only real alternative for true, viable deep learning.
• tomduncalf 9y ago
  I'm trying to understand what the real world implications of this notorious clause could be - obviously a lot of it comes down to legal interpretation but would be interesting to know people's thoughts. Say my company patent some key part of a product, and Facebook then release a product which infringes on this patent. If my company were to sue Facebook for this (unrelated to React) patent infringement, then as I understand it, this patent clause would cease to apply to my company. Does that then mean that Facebook could countersue my company for using React, saying that some part of React is patented and my use of it is therefore infringing that patent? This seems kind of weird to me, as React is a product that they put out there for people to use - it's like Microsoft suing me because I use Office and they have a patent on the ribbon UI or something. Or does it just mean that some third party could claim that React infringes on some patent of theirs, and they can then sue my company saying my use of React infringes on their patent? (Whereas previously Facebook would protect my company against this) Or does it mean something else entirely?!
• HugoDaniel 9y ago
  Seamlessly switched from react to infernojs[0] a year ago. The only difference is that the apps are way faster now in infernojs while providing me with more optimization options as jsx properties[1]. Also their support channel in slack is great[2]. [0] https://github.com/infernojs/inferno https://github.com/infernojs/inferno [1] https://infernojs.org/docs/guides/optimisations https://infernojs.org/docs/guides/optimisations [2] http://infernojs.slack.com http://infernojs.slack.com
• noir_lord 9y ago
  > Some even feel like they have to stop using UI frameworks because of it. No, some feel they have to stop using React, not all UI frameworks, VueJS is pure MIT etc.
• Vinnl 9y ago
  Can anyone explain if the patents license is anything more than "if you use our patents, we can use yours", or if that in itself is the thing that is offensive (and why)?
• delinka 9y ago
  Someone please help me understand the problems here. The repository includes two documents: 1) a proper BSD license, and 2) a patent license. While reading the latter, I see no mention of it affecting the former. So my take on this is that it's BSD-licensed code. Period. The patent license is a "bonus" and not at all required by the BSD license, and doesn't affect the BSD license. Any other company offering BSD licensed code is free to withhold licensing their patents at all. So are we suggesting that the patent license is a bad idea? That it's revocability is a bad idea? Why does this matter when the software is licensed under a BSD license?
  • navinsylvester 9y ago
    This explains the rationale: https://www.cncf.io/blog/2017/02/01/cncf-recommends-aslv2/ https://www.cncf.io/blog/2017/02/01/cncf-recommends-aslv2/
    • delinka 9y ago
      This reads to me like it boils down to "oh, geez, stop making people read your additional licenses and just use ours." And that's fine. But the HN comments all make it sound like the situation with a custom patent license is an offensive affront to their existence as software engineers. And I personally disagree with that strong stance. Especially from a group that also seems to agree that patents in the software world are obnoxious and would presumably not ever sue over such a patent...
• boubiyeah 9y ago
  Well it's a good thing there are plenty of alternatives. React is big but it only does the view well (and half of state management -.-') it's not too hard to replace in a stack. I salute its main author, Facebook and instagram for inventing the virtual DOM concept; it's fucking genius and helped us make better apps, faster. but absolutely no need to use react now.
• Kiro 9y ago
  What exactly does this mean to users of React? I've seen some dystopian scenarios but they feel really far-fetched.
• jgalt212 9y ago
  In practice, here's who will can be reasonably expect to be affected. 1. large tech cos. they always want to reserve the right to sue each other. 2. large advertisers. they need the ability to sue FB for any beefs they have over the ads they have purchased. So if you're one of the two, I think your general counsel will say not to use react for any new projects.
• azr79 9y ago
  is anyone else is having trouble to share the link on facebook messenger? http://imgur.com/a/TIQoP http://imgur.com/a/TIQoP
• mrhigat4 9y ago
  That's a shame. I really like the React interface, but would never build a company with it at the core just on the principle. Revoking on first strike is super defensive and just plain slimy. If there were something like create-preact-app (not forked from create-react-app) I'd be all about it. With special decorators, dogmatic separation of templates, styles and logic, and mutability I don't think I can get aboard the Vue.js train though I'll admit I haven't dove deep yet. The worst part is how Facebook seems to be asking other big players to follow their lead in adding kill switches to FOSS. It'd be one thing if it were just React. Devs shouldn't let this become common practice.
• qxzw 9y ago
  So for example if I create a product using React, something social-ish and it gets really popular. Facebook decides they like it and could easily implement something like that themselves. I find it to be blatant copy of my stuff. Nothing I can do there, right?
• whipoodle 9y ago
  I think React is a very nice way to build UIs. I am still very dubious as to how serious this issue actually is. It still feels rather ginned-up to me. I can't understand what the real threat is here.
• shock 9y ago
  > Facebook has always benefited from open source and has worked to contribute back as much as possible to the open source community. Yes, they have benefited from open source software under BSD, MIT, Apache licenses and giving back under BSD+Patent grant. What a load of bullshit.
• dinony 9y ago
  Why is this unvoteable for me? :D
• danschumann 9y ago
  I don't think it's bad. "If we give you free stuff and you sue us, you no longer get free stuff"
• supernumerary 9y ago
  Same for Yarn...
• captainmuon 9y ago
  I would appreciate if Facebook would actually explain their license. Especially: Is BSD+Patent strictly more permissive than BSD or not? There are two major camps as far as I can see: Camp 1: BSD license does not give you a patent grant. You can always be sued by Facebook if you infringe (potential) React patents. On top of this, Facebook grants you use of (potential) React patents - but only as long as you don't enforce patents against them. If you do, you are back to the BSD license alone. Camp 2: This camp believes a) that the BSD license implies an unconditional patent grant (for React) and b) that the conditional patent grant ('PATENTS') is not optional, but inseparable from 'LICENSE'. If this is true, BSD+Patent grant is strictly less permissive than BSD alone. If you enforce patents against Facebook, you stand worse than with BSD alone. The only way this could be cleared up (beyond doubt) is by a court, or very easily with a few lines from Facebook.
• addicted 9y ago
  I cannot help but look at this along with Facebook's copy to win strategy. It appears to me that FB might be using their open source contributions as a Trojan horse to make sure others can't compete with them. If a startup happens to use FB open source tech for their startup, FB can duplicate everything they do, even legitimately patented stuff, and the startup is unable to fight back because their sign up page happened to be built in React. This is giving just too much power o one company.
• dmoney 9y ago
  Let me make sure I understand this: The license means that Facebook grants you the right to use the patents on React, but if you sue Facebook for patent infringement, you lose the right to use React?
• ai_ia 9y ago
  Okay, I need some clarifications now regarding the whole issue. I am building my web app using React and will be extending to mobile platforms using React-Native. The product is kind of paradigm change in the way we deal with education, so I will at some point consider getting a patent protecting my own interests. My questions are as follows: 1. If fb copies the entire thing, repackages it as something different and tries to make it free and open source. I wouldn't be able to sue them just because I used React and React-Native? Is that all what the patent license means or I am missing something here?
  • scott_karana 9y ago
    You would be able to sue them, but you'd lose the grant to use any patents that cover React.
• alexandercrohde 9y ago
  I have to say, I think Facebook is in the right on this one. I think the ecosystem would benefit greatly if this were adopted massively. I also think very few companies are going to have a time where they need to sue FB for patent infringement (how many people have patents, how many of those patents should really exist, how likely is facebook to violate that patent)? This mostly follows if you believe the world is a better place without software patents at all.
• Illniyar 9y ago
  It seems to me the core of the disagreement revolves around whether you believe there is an implicit grant of patent or not. If you believe the BSD has an implicit grant, then the facebook license is a more limited license. If you don't believe it, then the facebook license is better for the user. As far as I know there is no president to solve this neither in the U.S. or europe, so both views are valid. One thing is weird in facebook's behaviour though - they imply that the BSD doesn't have an implicit grant, and so they are benevolently giving away a better license, but if so, then the public outcry should be enough to take it back, if it's just a gesture of good will, and it isn't received as such, what's the point in continuing in this course? The only explanation they give is that they are more or less on a crusade for people to adapt this license because they believe it will reduce patent lawsuits
• donpinkus 9y ago
  So, can I use React as my company's front end framework or not? If I do use React, what is the specific legal risk (if any)? PLEASE no emotionally charged comments - I just want a clear answer from someone who deeply understands the legal stuff.
  • gramstrong 9y ago
    You most likely certainly can with nothing to worry about. 99.99% of the world's developers will never need to sue Facebook for patent infringement. That is, unless Facebook begins reverse patent-trolling. But I see it as more of a decision on ethics at this point in time, and don't really see any reason to feel particularly threatened.
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• bugsbugs 9y ago
  Once someone told me a story about two company that were building cars. One was building slick cars the other not so slick cars but with robust tires that could roll on spikes, additionally they were silently buying roads. So, there were quite even on the market, but one day suddenly spikes just popped up from roads. At, the time when I heard this story the "spike" company was referring to Microsoft. So much about "do not be evil" policy although that is Google slogan one must ask is the Angular or Node.js next? 21st century and still greed for money and monopoly "one to rule them all" screwing open trusting hard working guy ... I know this is side ways but: how should we trust any other thing they release or talk about privacy, sharing, VR, Basic Income ... ?!
• kanishkdudeja 9y ago
  My opinion on why this could now become a practical problem for people who still want to continue with React: 1) This will deter people and organizations from using such libraries. For example :- WordPress.com and many other companies have said that they will no longer use React. 2) Lower usage and application of such libraries means that lesser people will find bugs in them, lesser people will fork these libraries, lesser people will contribute to these libraries. 3) Facebook may itself lose interest in continuing to open source the library. Or add any new features to the open source version. 4) People may get stuck with bugs in such libraries and with no functionality being added to such libraries for years.
• mderazon 9y ago
  At this point not using Facebook OSS tools for development is like not using Google for search. There are so many popular FB libraries under the same patent license, React is just the most popular.
• tjholowaychuk 9y ago
  Isn't React the slowest and largest React-like implementation anyway? Seems like this will just foster "nicer" implementations, I don't see what the worry is all about. It's not like React is some behemoth that can't be rewritten.
• yuhong 9y ago
  I just noticed that software patents and employment anti-discrimination laws have some very similar problems. With the performance of manual labor jobs and physical patents the tests tends to be relatively objective, and that was probably what both laws was designed for. With many other jobs and with software patents this is often not the case, making the laws much easier to abuse for example.
  • yuhong 9y ago
    As a side note, this is also why anti-discrimination laws still make sense for things like public places and voting, because the test for whether someone is able to vote for example tends to be objective.
• akapaka 9y ago
  > license is radioactive Same is true for Fuchsia, Google's new os replacement for android / linux. See https://github.com/fuchsia-mirror/calendar/blob/master/PATENTS https://github.com/fuchsia-mirror/calendar/blob/master/PATEN...
• ngsayjoe 9y ago
  As a small startup, I absolutely love this. It gives me the advantage to use React while my bigger VC-funded competitors can't.
• stolsvik 9y ago
  Wrt. the idea that without the grant, Facebook can sue you. A) There's this thing with "implicit grant" since they've open sourced it and grant you a license. But even without this, and more interestingly, B) If they sue anybody for anything regarding React, wouldn't they immediately loose the entire community around React? "Damn, they really sued Widgets Inc. over some bs. patent in React, better stop using this minefield right away"..
• f38hf3fhhf 9y ago
  Does this mean Facebook can infringe on your patents and you cannot sue?
• bytesandbots 9y ago
  > Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Imagine a small company releasing a new js framework with BSD+Patents license. Will FB use ever this framework? No. Because merely using this framework gives this small company the effective freedom to infringe Facebook's patents. Why? Because the cost for FB to shift frameworks will be huge, thus prohibiting FB to sue this small company for patent infringement. Using a software with BSD+Patents license is almost giving up the right to sue this company. This is dangerously radioactive.