4 ms·

Looks like React Native isn't included in the list for a license update.

pavlakoos 9y ago
What????
CydeWeys 9y ago
That's what gets me. There's a very narrow list of packages that they've selected for the MIT treatment. Why isn't the blog post something along the lines of "We're re-licensing all of our open source libraries under the MIT License and removing their patent clauses"? It seems like they're still trying to play games, and are only buckling to the pressure for a tiny number of libraries.
- randall 9y ago
  My less cynical view (hope) maybe react-native isn't due for an update soon and they'll do it next time there's a version bump?
  - CydeWeys 9y ago
    You don't need to update anything else besides the license when changing the license, though? There's no version bump required.
    - cesarb 9y ago
      Isn't the license file part of the distributed .tar.gz, packaging metadata, and other release artifacts? It's bad form to change the contents of a release after it's distributed. So even a small change like that would require a (minor) version bump.
- sebastianmck 9y ago
  See the fourth paragraph. > This shift naturally raises questions about the rest of Facebook's open source projects. Many of our popular projects will keep the BSD + Patents license for now. We're evaluating those projects' licenses too, but each project is different and alternative licensing options will depend on a variety of factors.
  - CydeWeys 9y ago
    So the list of packages they're truly open sourcing is intentionally small, then. They're only truly open sourcing the ones that are very popular and that had a huge amount of outcry over the license. That makes it worse.
    - Kilenaitor 9y ago
      > That makes it worse. In what way does re-licensing their most popular packages make it worse? It says they're evaluating. Doesn't say no and as demonstrated here it doesn't mean they wont change their mind later.
      - s73ver_ 9y ago
        What more is there to evaluate, though? What is different between React, which did get the relicense, and React Native, which didn't?
      - CydeWeys 9y ago
        You didn't interpret my comment correctly. What is worse is that the narrowly selected range of projects to re-license is intentional rather than unintentional. They're only fixing the patent clauses on the bare minimum that they feel is necessary due to outrage. That means that they'd rather not but they're being forced into it. It'd be different if they were deciding to re-license everything; that might indicate an actual change of heart.
      - wolco 9y ago
        What worries many is that they may change the license at a later
      - irrational 9y ago
        It creates continued uncertainty. If all the tools/libraries in the React ecosystem (such as React Native) don't all have the license, then we will probably stay the course with Vue. While Vue is amazing, React has a larger ecosystem. But if that entire ecosystem isn't available due to licenses then we might as well stick with Vue.
jameside 9y ago
The author of this Facebook Engineering post confirmed that React Native's license currently is the same as it's always been: https://twitter.com/dmwlff/status/911348886882607104 https://twitter.com/dmwlff/status/911348886882607104. I don't want to get into a big discussion about precise details here but pragmatically both the MIT and Facebook BSD+Patents licenses work well for most businesses, in particular those that aren't seeking to claim patent infringement against others.
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  I may not intend to go suing FB for patent infringement, but if they infringe on one of my patents, or if they sue me for patent infringement, it's really my only recourse.
  - chrisco255 9y ago
    You're probably already infringing on several Facebook patents. They bought a $500 million war chest of them in 2012 after getting sued by Yahoo. Many of them were from AOL and probably cover really broad concepts that we're all infringing upon. Let's not forget Amazon patented "one click checkout". Ok software patents are ridiculous. They always have been. The patent system was not built with something like software in mind.
  - magic_quotes 9y ago
    > if they infringe on one of my patents Well, the implicit assumption behind FB's bsd+patents license is that you should be ok with anyone "infringing" on your software patents, since software patents are mostly bullshit and you only acquired them to be used in defense (i. e. never suing someone first). That license doesn't make any sense if you believe otherwise.
    - jmrog 9y ago
      Well, the React PATENTS file seems to indicate that you would lose the patent grant for any patent assertion against Facebook,[1] not just for software patent assertions against Facebook. So, it's theoretically possible that the poster in the parent comment was concerned about a patent on something other than software. Maybe he or she has patented some type of VR headset, for example, and uses React VR for the software that drives it. He or she might reasonably worry that suing Facebook for infringement on the VR headset would result in the loss of patent protections concerning the React VR software. [1] The language I'm thinking of is the part that says that the license terminates if you initiate "any Patent Assertion: (i) against Facebook or any of its subsidiaries or corporate affiliates, (ii) . . . "
irrational 9y ago
Yeah, that is a downer. I'm going to wait and see what they decide to do about React Native before asking my company's lawyers if we can use React now.

What????

That's what gets me. There's a very narrow list of packages that they've selected for the MIT treatment. Why isn't the blog post something along the lines of "We're re-licensing all of our open source libraries under the MIT License and removing their patent clauses"? It seems like they're still trying to play games, and are only buckling to the pressure for a tiny number of libraries.

randall 9y ago
My less cynical view (hope) maybe react-native isn't due for an update soon and they'll do it next time there's a version bump?
- CydeWeys 9y ago
  You don't need to update anything else besides the license when changing the license, though? There's no version bump required.
  - cesarb 9y ago
    Isn't the license file part of the distributed .tar.gz, packaging metadata, and other release artifacts? It's bad form to change the contents of a release after it's distributed. So even a small change like that would require a (minor) version bump.
sebastianmck 9y ago
See the fourth paragraph. > This shift naturally raises questions about the rest of Facebook's open source projects. Many of our popular projects will keep the BSD + Patents license for now. We're evaluating those projects' licenses too, but each project is different and alternative licensing options will depend on a variety of factors.
- CydeWeys 9y ago
  So the list of packages they're truly open sourcing is intentionally small, then. They're only truly open sourcing the ones that are very popular and that had a huge amount of outcry over the license. That makes it worse.
  - Kilenaitor 9y ago
    > That makes it worse. In what way does re-licensing their most popular packages make it worse? It says they're evaluating. Doesn't say no and as demonstrated here it doesn't mean they wont change their mind later.
    - s73ver_ 9y ago
      What more is there to evaluate, though? What is different between React, which did get the relicense, and React Native, which didn't?
    - CydeWeys 9y ago
      You didn't interpret my comment correctly. What is worse is that the narrowly selected range of projects to re-license is intentional rather than unintentional. They're only fixing the patent clauses on the bare minimum that they feel is necessary due to outrage. That means that they'd rather not but they're being forced into it. It'd be different if they were deciding to re-license everything; that might indicate an actual change of heart.
    - wolco 9y ago
      What worries many is that they may change the license at a later
    - irrational 9y ago
      It creates continued uncertainty. If all the tools/libraries in the React ecosystem (such as React Native) don't all have the license, then we will probably stay the course with Vue. While Vue is amazing, React has a larger ecosystem. But if that entire ecosystem isn't available due to licenses then we might as well stick with Vue.

jameside 9y ago

The author of this Facebook Engineering post confirmed that React Native's license currently is the same as it's always been: https://twitter.com/dmwlff/status/911348886882607104 https://twitter.com/dmwlff/status/911348886882607104. I don't want to get into a big discussion about precise details here but pragmatically both the MIT and Facebook BSD+Patents licenses work well for most businesses, in particular those that aren't seeking to claim patent infringement against others.

s73ver_ 9y ago
I may not intend to go suing FB for patent infringement, but if they infringe on one of my patents, or if they sue me for patent infringement, it's really my only recourse.
- chrisco255 9y ago
  You're probably already infringing on several Facebook patents. They bought a $500 million war chest of them in 2012 after getting sued by Yahoo. Many of them were from AOL and probably cover really broad concepts that we're all infringing upon. Let's not forget Amazon patented "one click checkout". Ok software patents are ridiculous. They always have been. The patent system was not built with something like software in mind.
- magic_quotes 9y ago
  > if they infringe on one of my patents Well, the implicit assumption behind FB's bsd+patents license is that you should be ok with anyone "infringing" on your software patents, since software patents are mostly bullshit and you only acquired them to be used in defense (i. e. never suing someone first). That license doesn't make any sense if you believe otherwise.
  - jmrog 9y ago
    Well, the React PATENTS file seems to indicate that you would lose the patent grant for any patent assertion against Facebook,[1] not just for software patent assertions against Facebook. So, it's theoretically possible that the poster in the parent comment was concerned about a patent on something other than software. Maybe he or she has patented some type of VR headset, for example, and uses React VR for the software that drives it. He or she might reasonably worry that suing Facebook for infringement on the VR headset would result in the loss of patent protections concerning the React VR software. [1] The language I'm thinking of is the part that says that the license terminates if you initiate "any Patent Assertion: (i) against Facebook or any of its subsidiaries or corporate affiliates, (ii) . . . "

irrational 9y ago

Yeah, that is a downer. I'm going to wait and see what they decide to do about React Native before asking my company's lawyers if we can use React now.