5 ms·

Alternatively there's this: https://github.com/developit/preact https://github.com/developit/preact Preact is a fast 3kB alternative to React, with the same ES

Alternatively there's this: https://github.com/developit/preact https://github.com/developit/preact Preact is a fast 3kB alternative to React, with the same ES2015 API as that of React. Preact is MIT licensed and does not have any additional conditions beyond that.

jfaucett 9y ago
Yes, preact looks like a good drop-in replacement. The good thing about the MIT license is you know what you are getting. I also agree with the OP, even viewing FB in the best light possible, about the best case you can make is that they want to hedge any risks to themselves while profiting from OSS contributions and the OSS marketing. As it stands, there is virtually no case to be made for them wanting to contribute to the OSS community. IMHO if you're a dev and contributing to the facebook oss ecosystem, I would actively encourage you to stop.
- raulk 9y ago
  As I said in my article [1]: Patents protect ideas and inventions. In most cases, patent assertion cases are not black or white — win or loose. Infringement evaluation is complex and costly. A lawsuit can cost hundreds of thousands or millions to file and pursue. You might have a 85% confidence that FB violated a patent of yours, but to even pursue it it’s going to cost you a lot of money. If on top of that, you will need to invest to migrate away onto a different frontend framework first, and make sure that all your customers are using your new product version (what if you’re using React Native? your users may not upgrade the apps at once!), before you can even file the lawsuit, do you think that’s an honest, ethical usage of open source philosophy? Bottom line: Open Source is not a “quid pro quo” trade. Open Source is about creating communities to build better software together. It should never be used as a marketplace to exchange people's rights. [1] https://medium.com/consensusx/if-youre-a-startup-you-should-not-use-react-reflecting-on-the-bsd-patents-license-b049d4a67dd2 https://medium.com/consensusx/if-youre-a-startup-you-should-...
  - jnbiche 9y ago
    Thank you. You pretty eloquently summed up my thoughts about this entire situation. I'm sad, because Facebook runs some pretty cool open source projects. But I will no longer contribute to them if this is their attitude. It's about as far from community-oriented as I can imagine.
    - chiefalchemist 9y ago
      FB would be happy to replace the internet with Facebook. I think we've all known this for some time now. It's not their attitude, it's their entire reason for being. It's a form of totalitarianism that we don't have a word for; that's beyond most people's imagination. It would be fitting for FB to change their motto (?) to "We're not evil either." Lol
      - thecrazyone 9y ago
        Good joke there :) Do you believe Google also has shown intents to be totalitarian or "be evil" ? IMHO Google has handled their enormous power and popularity very well. Fair Disclaimer: I must confess I'm a google user, not affiliated to them in any other way (that I know of) though :D
        chiefalchemist 9y ago
        It's not what I believe. It's what the "data" shows. Sure you can believe the words. But it's actions that matter. And in that context "don't be evil" is comical at best.
  - chiefalchemist 9y ago
    So ultimately patents boil down to the deepest pockets. Not that I'm naive, but that's a pretty shitty way to do such things.
tgb 9y ago
Sorry I've forgotten what the status was on the "are APIs copyrightable" question, i.e. the Oracle v Google fight. I'm kind of confused about what wikipedia says happened - there seem to be two final rulings one in favor of Oracle and one in favor of Google with Oracle appealing the second. Is it that APIs are copyrightable but duplicating them is (sometimes?) covered under fair use? Either way, I'd be a little hesitant to use this.
- joatmon-snoo 9y ago
  You are correct. (For the unfamiliar, there are separate rulings because in this case, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that APIs are copyrightable, then remanded back to the district court to re-try the case in light of the new decision about copyrightability, which then found that reimplementation of the API was covered under fair use.)
  - auxbuss 9y ago
    Only in the US. In the EU, in particular, APIs cannot be copyrighted[0]. Namely: "For the avoidance of doubt, it has to be made clear that only the expression of a computer program is protected and that ideas and principles which underlie any element of a program, including those which underlie its interfaces, are not protected by copyright under this Directive." [0] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32009L0024 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:320...
    - joatmon-snoo 9y ago
      Whoops - sorry, yes, this is a very good point. I'm usually good at checking my own US-centric POV but I totally forgot here.
- ktRolster 9y ago
  APIs are copyrightable. You can see here: http://www.zerobugsandprogramfaster.net/essays/x-1.html http://www.zerobugsandprogramfaster.net/essays/x-1.html There is still a question on fair use. Google won the jury trial, but the appellate court is ruling in a few months, and that could change everything.
solomatov 9y ago
IANAL, but the problem with MIT is that it doesn't give you anything in relation to patents. I.e. it doesn't even mention them. In this respect, it's no better than React's BSD without patents. I.e. MIT and BSD are quite similar.
- slavik81 9y ago
  The MIT license doesn't mention copyright either, except to state who holds the copyright and forbid you from changing that statement. The actual permission notice says you have the right to use the software without restriction. To me, a layman, it would seem contradictory and unfair if they later claimed that they held previously unmentioned patents that restricted your use of the software.
  - comex 9y ago
    It might imply a patent license, it might not. I don't think it's ever been tested in court. But at best you're getting a license to the Preact author's patents, if there are any, which there probably aren't. You're definitely not getting a license to Facebook's patents - but because Preact is a clone of React (in outward design, at least), any Facebook patent that applies to React has a decent chance of also applying to Preact. So I'm not sure it helps that much...
    - slavik81 9y ago
      Apologies. I didn't notice this was about preact specifically. I agree that switching to preact is unlikely to help with any patent issues. I don't think any free licenses indemnify you from third-party patent claims.
barneycarroll 9y ago
It's debatable how far that provides indemnity from Facebook. It's explicitly derived from their API, so whereas you can conceivably write a project to make use of React and then seamlessly switch to Preact if Facebook become threatening, surely Preact itself is liable — and your software by extension — for using the API?
- confounded 9y ago
  It does appear that in the US, APIs are considered subject to copyright, thanks to Oracle: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160511/17515734410/stakes-are-high-oracle-v-google-public-has-already-lost-big.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160511/17515734410/stake...

jfaucett 9y ago

Yes, preact looks like a good drop-in replacement. The good thing about the MIT license is you know what you are getting. I also agree with the OP, even viewing FB in the best light possible, about the best case you can make is that they want to hedge any risks to themselves while profiting from OSS contributions and the OSS marketing. As it stands, there is virtually no case to be made for them wanting to contribute to the OSS community. IMHO if you're a dev and contributing to the facebook oss ecosystem, I would actively encourage you to stop.

raulk 9y ago
As I said in my article [1]: Patents protect ideas and inventions. In most cases, patent assertion cases are not black or white — win or loose. Infringement evaluation is complex and costly. A lawsuit can cost hundreds of thousands or millions to file and pursue. You might have a 85% confidence that FB violated a patent of yours, but to even pursue it it’s going to cost you a lot of money. If on top of that, you will need to invest to migrate away onto a different frontend framework first, and make sure that all your customers are using your new product version (what if you’re using React Native? your users may not upgrade the apps at once!), before you can even file the lawsuit, do you think that’s an honest, ethical usage of open source philosophy? Bottom line: Open Source is not a “quid pro quo” trade. Open Source is about creating communities to build better software together. It should never be used as a marketplace to exchange people's rights. [1] https://medium.com/consensusx/if-youre-a-startup-you-should-not-use-react-reflecting-on-the-bsd-patents-license-b049d4a67dd2 https://medium.com/consensusx/if-youre-a-startup-you-should-...
- jnbiche 9y ago
  Thank you. You pretty eloquently summed up my thoughts about this entire situation. I'm sad, because Facebook runs some pretty cool open source projects. But I will no longer contribute to them if this is their attitude. It's about as far from community-oriented as I can imagine.
  - chiefalchemist 9y ago
    FB would be happy to replace the internet with Facebook. I think we've all known this for some time now. It's not their attitude, it's their entire reason for being. It's a form of totalitarianism that we don't have a word for; that's beyond most people's imagination. It would be fitting for FB to change their motto (?) to "We're not evil either." Lol
    - thecrazyone 9y ago
      Good joke there :) Do you believe Google also has shown intents to be totalitarian or "be evil" ? IMHO Google has handled their enormous power and popularity very well. Fair Disclaimer: I must confess I'm a google user, not affiliated to them in any other way (that I know of) though :D
      - chiefalchemist 9y ago
        It's not what I believe. It's what the "data" shows. Sure you can believe the words. But it's actions that matter. And in that context "don't be evil" is comical at best.
- chiefalchemist 9y ago
  So ultimately patents boil down to the deepest pockets. Not that I'm naive, but that's a pretty shitty way to do such things.

tgb 9y ago

Sorry I've forgotten what the status was on the "are APIs copyrightable" question, i.e. the Oracle v Google fight. I'm kind of confused about what wikipedia says happened - there seem to be two final rulings one in favor of Oracle and one in favor of Google with Oracle appealing the second. Is it that APIs are copyrightable but duplicating them is (sometimes?) covered under fair use? Either way, I'd be a little hesitant to use this.

joatmon-snoo 9y ago
You are correct. (For the unfamiliar, there are separate rulings because in this case, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that APIs are copyrightable, then remanded back to the district court to re-try the case in light of the new decision about copyrightability, which then found that reimplementation of the API was covered under fair use.)
- auxbuss 9y ago
  Only in the US. In the EU, in particular, APIs cannot be copyrighted[0]. Namely: "For the avoidance of doubt, it has to be made clear that only the expression of a computer program is protected and that ideas and principles which underlie any element of a program, including those which underlie its interfaces, are not protected by copyright under this Directive." [0] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32009L0024 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:320...
  - joatmon-snoo 9y ago
    Whoops - sorry, yes, this is a very good point. I'm usually good at checking my own US-centric POV but I totally forgot here.
ktRolster 9y ago
APIs are copyrightable. You can see here: http://www.zerobugsandprogramfaster.net/essays/x-1.html http://www.zerobugsandprogramfaster.net/essays/x-1.html There is still a question on fair use. Google won the jury trial, but the appellate court is ruling in a few months, and that could change everything.

solomatov 9y ago

IANAL, but the problem with MIT is that it doesn't give you anything in relation to patents. I.e. it doesn't even mention them. In this respect, it's no better than React's BSD without patents. I.e. MIT and BSD are quite similar.

slavik81 9y ago
The MIT license doesn't mention copyright either, except to state who holds the copyright and forbid you from changing that statement. The actual permission notice says you have the right to use the software without restriction. To me, a layman, it would seem contradictory and unfair if they later claimed that they held previously unmentioned patents that restricted your use of the software.
- comex 9y ago
  It might imply a patent license, it might not. I don't think it's ever been tested in court. But at best you're getting a license to the Preact author's patents, if there are any, which there probably aren't. You're definitely not getting a license to Facebook's patents - but because Preact is a clone of React (in outward design, at least), any Facebook patent that applies to React has a decent chance of also applying to Preact. So I'm not sure it helps that much...
  - slavik81 9y ago
    Apologies. I didn't notice this was about preact specifically. I agree that switching to preact is unlikely to help with any patent issues. I don't think any free licenses indemnify you from third-party patent claims.

barneycarroll 9y ago

It's debatable how far that provides indemnity from Facebook. It's explicitly derived from their API, so whereas you can conceivably write a project to make use of React and then seamlessly switch to Preact if Facebook become threatening, surely Preact itself is liable — and your software by extension — for using the API?

confounded 9y ago
It does appear that in the US, APIs are considered subject to copyright, thanks to Oracle: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160511/17515734410/stakes-are-high-oracle-v-google-public-has-already-lost-big.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160511/17515734410/stake...