7 ms·

People who ridicule the notion of FUD causing actual harm, pay attention: this is a perfect example of the chilling effects of FUD on software projects. Automa

by pluma 9y ago

People who ridicule the notion of FUD causing actual harm, pay attention: this is a perfect example of the chilling effects of FUD on software projects. Automattic didn't drop React because it doesn't like the license. Automattic dropped React because the FUD surrounding React's license might rub off on them (and WordPress). It's their right to do so and it's in the best interest of WordPress to avoid being dragged into the patent FUD but it's important to understand that this isn't an act of protest against Facebook, it's FUD in full effect.

rk06 9y ago
It was FUD before Apache Foundation placed React's license as Category X. Now, it is not.
- whipoodle 9y ago
  Why?
- pluma 9y ago
  Why? If I spread the rumor "maybe bananas contain rat poison" and Whole Foods would stop stocking bananas, how would that in any way legitimise fears of rat poison in bananas?
bodegajed 9y ago
Comfort can hurt. Automattic is not comfortable with the Facebook license and you say it like it's a baseless FUD but even if they get a 1% chance of going to court against Facebook then they rather not take that risk of litigation anytime in the future. It's a business decision for the long term as rewriting doesn't cost that much for them.
- onli 9y ago
  No, that's not what the article says. It says the fears around the license are something they do not want to have to address within their ecosystem. Wordpress itself is comfortable with the license. There is no fear of going to court.
- jeswin 9y ago
  So let's see. 1. Possibility of Automattic attacking FB with patents = 0%. (No issues here with React) 2. Possibility of FB attacking Automattic with patents (No issues here; Patent grant doesn't get revoked for countersuing). 3. Wordpress end users getting attacked by FaceBook (Again no issues here, grant doesn't get revoked for countersuing). 4. Wordpress end users planning to use software patents against FB - The guys who actually have a problem. So basically, the FUD helped individuals/trolls/companies who want to wield software patents as a weapon; to the detriment of the wider community which sees software patents as evil.
  - pknight 9y ago
    > So basically, the FUD helped individuals/trolls/companies who want to wield software patents as a weapon; to the detriment of the wider community This is just beyond ridiculous to characterize the FB patents addition as some sort of social good needed in the battle against patent litigation, like they are doing everyone a favour. The patents addition in the license is there to protect FB's interests. Words that specifically benefit the interests of a megacorp do not belong in an open source license meant to be used by everyone and anyone. It sets a terrible precedent that can be used to justify a whole range of different companies adding their own clauses, each of which that can be plausibly argued for. And all of that requires other companies to conduct legal counsel, altering which companies would be adopting WordPress - imposing a kind of decision making process and barrier that few if any in WP would or should desire. And it's not even worth it considering there are equally attractive alternatives out there.
    - chrisco255 9y ago
      Sadly there's not. I like Vue, but it doesn't have the maturity or ecosystem of React. Plus React Native is a great addition to open source that Vue has yet to fully counter. There's also GraphQL, which is published by this license as well. Lots of great, revolutionary tech impacted by this license.
      - pknight 9y ago
        WordPress is looking for a way to create modern interfaces in a more streamlined way and are looking for a tool to make that easy. Any number of libraries and frameworks are perfectly viable or can be made viable, most of which are operating from the same set of ideas while delivering the same benefits. The size of React's ecosystem, bus factor and the availability of React Native all are nice but overstated in their importance relative to alternatives and obscure the many other considerations the WP community weighs up. Further more, React's ecosystem size conveys marginal benefits given that use of React in core would have been constrained (it's not like core devs would be tapping into many additional React-based tools for core work). React Native has not proven itself to be as stellar and promotes lock-in. If we come to rely on additional FB-engineered architecture to such a degree WP bets its future on the decisions made by a corporate giant with goals very dissimilar to WP and with decisions that may change down the line. This idea that FB has somehow has the closest thing to the holy grail and so we must all jump aboard the FB train is a very foolish and shortsighted one in my view. WP was wise not to adopt it.
- pluma 9y ago
  Did we read the same article? Automattic is not worried about the license. Automattic is worried about how others perceive the license and how that will lead to WordPress being perceived. They see no risk in the license, they see risk in how they will be perceived for being associated with the license. The license is ONLY a problem if you intend to initiate litigation against Facebook and can't swap out React (or a React-using product you rely on) with something else. Something tells me the number of companies that a) will ever be in a situation to sue Facebook over patents, b) rely on React or React-based products, c) don't already infringe upon any other Facebook patent without using React, AND d) would be severely harmed if sued over React patents, is exceedingly small. Google, Amazon, Microsoft and Apple only fulfill conditions a and b (although React is non-vital to their businesses). Most startups only fulfill conditions b and d. In order to meet all four conditions, your company would have to be built entirely on React (or other FB open source technologies), be small enough not to be able to replace React, not infringe on any of the many other patents FB holds and yet somehow own patents FB infringes on and want to actively sue them. Deciding against React because of the patent situation for most companies is the equivalent of worrying about someone stealing your second million before you have even made a single dollar.
StevePerkins 9y ago
The term "FUD" is typically used to denote "unreasonable" or "unfounded" fear/uncertainty/doubt. I'm not sure that it applies to situations where doubt is NOT unreasonable.
- oddlyaromatic 9y ago
  The parent appears to be using the term FUD with this in mind, to suggest that the doubt is indeed unreasonable.
- notacoward 9y ago
  > I'm not sure that it applies to situations where doubt is NOT unreasonable. It doesn't, but it does apply to this situation because the fear etc. is unreasonable. Utterly. Either you have an explicit patent license or the entire PATENTS file becomes inoperative and you have exactly what you would have had with a plain BSD license. It's simple logic. Authority after authority, including Automattic's own counsel, has tried to explain in detail that patent law is not immune to logic. But still the FUD keeps coming, and it's harmful to open source because this is the exact same "why risk it" FUD that has been used against open source in general for years. It's the old Microsoft line returned from the dead, after Microsoft themselves have abandoned it to become pretty decent OSS citizens.
  - Flenser 9y ago
    Except that the implicit licence couldn't be terminated if you sued Facebook: https://i.imgur.com/geUPyXl.png https://i.imgur.com/geUPyXl.png
    - chrisco255 9y ago
      Nobody knows if there is an implicit patent license or not for MIT / BSD Code. It's never been tested in court.
      - Flenser 9y ago
        "never been tested in court" doesn't mean you can't have an opinion on whether it would hold up in court: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15051717 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15051717 (e.g. many parts of the GPL have never been tested in court.)
whipoodle 9y ago
Yes, well said and observed.
pknight 9y ago
A deeply arrogant and ignorant notion. If you think this was about FUD you really don't understand why people protest React as a core component inside WordPress. Most people are well aware that they are unlikely to get into any kind of legal dispute with Facebook or otherwise. Nor is it an issue that Facebook chooses to license React the way it wants. And the majority are against software patents.
- halfteatree 9y ago
  > A deeply arrogant and ignorant notion. This sentence is quite arrogant in itself. > If you think this was about FUD you really don't understand why people protest React as a core component inside WordPress. Then please explain what this is about? Numerous other posts in this thread (including mine) have explained that you are strictly better off with the PATENT grant. I have yet to see a post that explains why this is bad without FUD.
  - pknight 9y ago
    FUD implies that a decision was mostly based on people's irrationality or misinformation about what the patents clause does or doesn't do. It's a lazy assumption not made by someone who has followed the discussions in the WP community, so yes it was both ignorant and arrogant. > have explained that you are strictly better off with the PATENT grant This point is irrelevant even granting the assumption that it does. You're inspecting the wording of the patent grant and gauging whether it is theoretically effective in deterring patent litigation and thereby conferring some kind of benefit to users of the software is (correct?). Well over 99.9% sites that use WordPress never have to worry about relevant patent litigation to start with, it's completely and utterly beside the point. Somehow this has blossomed into an argument that basically says 'our OSS software needs to come included with patent clauses for better protection'. It's ridiculous. Why the FB license signals a bad fit comes from asking different questions. Why is it there in the first place? Because FB is a megacorp and operates like one, it is there to protect the interests of a megacorp. Not a slight on FB, but also not something we should welcome to package with every copy of our pure OSS software. What is a consequence of non-standard clauses? Businesses and teams feel compelled to take up legal counsel. They may find that it turns out to be totally fine, as even Automattic found when it adopted React for Calypso. But others don't and the mere fact that the adoption of software is necessitating legal counsel adds an unnecessary and negative cost to choosing WordPress as a platform. What kind of precedent does it set? That non-standard additions to OSS licenses are fine for companies to impose. Alternatively, FB is a special case. Does it undermine WP approach to OSS licenses and promoting these? In WP we take no exceptions to GPL compliance and compatibility, no exceptions for obvious reasons. No business enjoys special privileges or exceptions. That's by design, WP stated goal is to democratize the web. Unstated goals mean that everybody is on equal footing, a level playing ground. You want to use WordPress? You can do so unreservedly as long as you convey the same exact freedoms that come with a GPL compatible license. No exceptions. Whether the patents clause is benign or not - it is a big fat sign that says "FB enjoys special privileges here". It complicates the picture by offering up a contradicting component by way of a non-standard clause. It introduces friction on a point where there should be no friction at all. It also encourages an ecosystem where multiple clauses are introduced with companies adding their own wordings to protect their business, it doesn't scale. No good reasons to support something that doesn't scale. Who put the clause there? A company that is hostile the open web, hostile to democracy, hostile to users and with a history of undermining startups while enjoying a monopoly position. It is entirely in-congruent with a world that WP wants to be in. It causes many people that use WP for whatever reason to be suspicious and wary of affiliating with or critically depending on anything this company does. That's not FUD, it's a reasonable position based on a cold hard assessment of what FB is. But doesn't company X choosing React and determining it to be benign mean other users are worrying for nothing? Any particular business might be fine with React, it all depends on what their project is and what their goals are. Other companies will explicitly avoid React for good reasons, some have done so on the basis of the patents clause. WP adopting core is making a decision for all people using WordPress and all future projects that would or would normally have chosen WordPress. It's a monumental decision, inviting different considerations. A platform that has pinned its success on offering something that is both free and licensed in a way to convey freedoms while working toward leveling the playing field can't just adopt a special license for all of its users merely on the basis that the software attached to the license currently leads the pack. Everybody agrees software patents are bad, so why not embrace the patent clause? I would guess virtually a 100% of WP users are anti-software patent. But clauses that protect corporations are not the solution.

by pluma 9y ago

rk06 9y ago

It was FUD before Apache Foundation placed React's license as Category X. Now, it is not.

whipoodle 9y ago
Why?
pluma 9y ago
Why? If I spread the rumor "maybe bananas contain rat poison" and Whole Foods would stop stocking bananas, how would that in any way legitimise fears of rat poison in bananas?

bodegajed 9y ago

Comfort can hurt. Automattic is not comfortable with the Facebook license and you say it like it's a baseless FUD but even if they get a 1% chance of going to court against Facebook then they rather not take that risk of litigation anytime in the future. It's a business decision for the long term as rewriting doesn't cost that much for them.

onli 9y ago
No, that's not what the article says. It says the fears around the license are something they do not want to have to address within their ecosystem. Wordpress itself is comfortable with the license. There is no fear of going to court.
jeswin 9y ago
So let's see. 1. Possibility of Automattic attacking FB with patents = 0%. (No issues here with React) 2. Possibility of FB attacking Automattic with patents (No issues here; Patent grant doesn't get revoked for countersuing). 3. Wordpress end users getting attacked by FaceBook (Again no issues here, grant doesn't get revoked for countersuing). 4. Wordpress end users planning to use software patents against FB - The guys who actually have a problem. So basically, the FUD helped individuals/trolls/companies who want to wield software patents as a weapon; to the detriment of the wider community which sees software patents as evil.
- pknight 9y ago
  > So basically, the FUD helped individuals/trolls/companies who want to wield software patents as a weapon; to the detriment of the wider community This is just beyond ridiculous to characterize the FB patents addition as some sort of social good needed in the battle against patent litigation, like they are doing everyone a favour. The patents addition in the license is there to protect FB's interests. Words that specifically benefit the interests of a megacorp do not belong in an open source license meant to be used by everyone and anyone. It sets a terrible precedent that can be used to justify a whole range of different companies adding their own clauses, each of which that can be plausibly argued for. And all of that requires other companies to conduct legal counsel, altering which companies would be adopting WordPress - imposing a kind of decision making process and barrier that few if any in WP would or should desire. And it's not even worth it considering there are equally attractive alternatives out there.
  - chrisco255 9y ago
    Sadly there's not. I like Vue, but it doesn't have the maturity or ecosystem of React. Plus React Native is a great addition to open source that Vue has yet to fully counter. There's also GraphQL, which is published by this license as well. Lots of great, revolutionary tech impacted by this license.
    - pknight 9y ago
      WordPress is looking for a way to create modern interfaces in a more streamlined way and are looking for a tool to make that easy. Any number of libraries and frameworks are perfectly viable or can be made viable, most of which are operating from the same set of ideas while delivering the same benefits. The size of React's ecosystem, bus factor and the availability of React Native all are nice but overstated in their importance relative to alternatives and obscure the many other considerations the WP community weighs up. Further more, React's ecosystem size conveys marginal benefits given that use of React in core would have been constrained (it's not like core devs would be tapping into many additional React-based tools for core work). React Native has not proven itself to be as stellar and promotes lock-in. If we come to rely on additional FB-engineered architecture to such a degree WP bets its future on the decisions made by a corporate giant with goals very dissimilar to WP and with decisions that may change down the line. This idea that FB has somehow has the closest thing to the holy grail and so we must all jump aboard the FB train is a very foolish and shortsighted one in my view. WP was wise not to adopt it.
pluma 9y ago
Did we read the same article? Automattic is not worried about the license. Automattic is worried about how others perceive the license and how that will lead to WordPress being perceived. They see no risk in the license, they see risk in how they will be perceived for being associated with the license. The license is ONLY a problem if you intend to initiate litigation against Facebook and can't swap out React (or a React-using product you rely on) with something else. Something tells me the number of companies that a) will ever be in a situation to sue Facebook over patents, b) rely on React or React-based products, c) don't already infringe upon any other Facebook patent without using React, AND d) would be severely harmed if sued over React patents, is exceedingly small. Google, Amazon, Microsoft and Apple only fulfill conditions a and b (although React is non-vital to their businesses). Most startups only fulfill conditions b and d. In order to meet all four conditions, your company would have to be built entirely on React (or other FB open source technologies), be small enough not to be able to replace React, not infringe on any of the many other patents FB holds and yet somehow own patents FB infringes on and want to actively sue them. Deciding against React because of the patent situation for most companies is the equivalent of worrying about someone stealing your second million before you have even made a single dollar.

StevePerkins 9y ago

The term "FUD" is typically used to denote "unreasonable" or "unfounded" fear/uncertainty/doubt. I'm not sure that it applies to situations where doubt is NOT unreasonable.

oddlyaromatic 9y ago
The parent appears to be using the term FUD with this in mind, to suggest that the doubt is indeed unreasonable.
notacoward 9y ago
> I'm not sure that it applies to situations where doubt is NOT unreasonable. It doesn't, but it does apply to this situation because the fear etc. is unreasonable. Utterly. Either you have an explicit patent license or the entire PATENTS file becomes inoperative and you have exactly what you would have had with a plain BSD license. It's simple logic. Authority after authority, including Automattic's own counsel, has tried to explain in detail that patent law is not immune to logic. But still the FUD keeps coming, and it's harmful to open source because this is the exact same "why risk it" FUD that has been used against open source in general for years. It's the old Microsoft line returned from the dead, after Microsoft themselves have abandoned it to become pretty decent OSS citizens.
- Flenser 9y ago
  Except that the implicit licence couldn't be terminated if you sued Facebook: https://i.imgur.com/geUPyXl.png https://i.imgur.com/geUPyXl.png
  - chrisco255 9y ago
    Nobody knows if there is an implicit patent license or not for MIT / BSD Code. It's never been tested in court.
    - Flenser 9y ago
      "never been tested in court" doesn't mean you can't have an opinion on whether it would hold up in court: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15051717 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15051717 (e.g. many parts of the GPL have never been tested in court.)

whipoodle 9y ago

Yes, well said and observed.

pknight 9y ago

A deeply arrogant and ignorant notion. If you think this was about FUD you really don't understand why people protest React as a core component inside WordPress. Most people are well aware that they are unlikely to get into any kind of legal dispute with Facebook or otherwise. Nor is it an issue that Facebook chooses to license React the way it wants. And the majority are against software patents.

halfteatree 9y ago
> A deeply arrogant and ignorant notion. This sentence is quite arrogant in itself. > If you think this was about FUD you really don't understand why people protest React as a core component inside WordPress. Then please explain what this is about? Numerous other posts in this thread (including mine) have explained that you are strictly better off with the PATENT grant. I have yet to see a post that explains why this is bad without FUD.
- pknight 9y ago
  FUD implies that a decision was mostly based on people's irrationality or misinformation about what the patents clause does or doesn't do. It's a lazy assumption not made by someone who has followed the discussions in the WP community, so yes it was both ignorant and arrogant. > have explained that you are strictly better off with the PATENT grant This point is irrelevant even granting the assumption that it does. You're inspecting the wording of the patent grant and gauging whether it is theoretically effective in deterring patent litigation and thereby conferring some kind of benefit to users of the software is (correct?). Well over 99.9% sites that use WordPress never have to worry about relevant patent litigation to start with, it's completely and utterly beside the point. Somehow this has blossomed into an argument that basically says 'our OSS software needs to come included with patent clauses for better protection'. It's ridiculous. Why the FB license signals a bad fit comes from asking different questions. Why is it there in the first place? Because FB is a megacorp and operates like one, it is there to protect the interests of a megacorp. Not a slight on FB, but also not something we should welcome to package with every copy of our pure OSS software. What is a consequence of non-standard clauses? Businesses and teams feel compelled to take up legal counsel. They may find that it turns out to be totally fine, as even Automattic found when it adopted React for Calypso. But others don't and the mere fact that the adoption of software is necessitating legal counsel adds an unnecessary and negative cost to choosing WordPress as a platform. What kind of precedent does it set? That non-standard additions to OSS licenses are fine for companies to impose. Alternatively, FB is a special case. Does it undermine WP approach to OSS licenses and promoting these? In WP we take no exceptions to GPL compliance and compatibility, no exceptions for obvious reasons. No business enjoys special privileges or exceptions. That's by design, WP stated goal is to democratize the web. Unstated goals mean that everybody is on equal footing, a level playing ground. You want to use WordPress? You can do so unreservedly as long as you convey the same exact freedoms that come with a GPL compatible license. No exceptions. Whether the patents clause is benign or not - it is a big fat sign that says "FB enjoys special privileges here". It complicates the picture by offering up a contradicting component by way of a non-standard clause. It introduces friction on a point where there should be no friction at all. It also encourages an ecosystem where multiple clauses are introduced with companies adding their own wordings to protect their business, it doesn't scale. No good reasons to support something that doesn't scale. Who put the clause there? A company that is hostile the open web, hostile to democracy, hostile to users and with a history of undermining startups while enjoying a monopoly position. It is entirely in-congruent with a world that WP wants to be in. It causes many people that use WP for whatever reason to be suspicious and wary of affiliating with or critically depending on anything this company does. That's not FUD, it's a reasonable position based on a cold hard assessment of what FB is. But doesn't company X choosing React and determining it to be benign mean other users are worrying for nothing? Any particular business might be fine with React, it all depends on what their project is and what their goals are. Other companies will explicitly avoid React for good reasons, some have done so on the basis of the patents clause. WP adopting core is making a decision for all people using WordPress and all future projects that would or would normally have chosen WordPress. It's a monumental decision, inviting different considerations. A platform that has pinned its success on offering something that is both free and licensed in a way to convey freedoms while working toward leveling the playing field can't just adopt a special license for all of its users merely on the basis that the software attached to the license currently leads the pack. Everybody agrees software patents are bad, so why not embrace the patent clause? I would guess virtually a 100% of WP users are anti-software patent. But clauses that protect corporations are not the solution.