I suppose the reason Facebook doesn't resell their infrastructure is because their endgame is to _be_ the internet. From their point of view, any site you're on that isn't Facebook is their competition.
(Not that I'm criticizing Facebook. Open-sourcing code is hard -- see Borg.)
The point was that yes, Open Compute exists, but its existence is only partially relevant when one claims that Facebook has opened their "infrastructure." The two sentences in GP are basically what I'm responding to -- mainly the verbatim "FB open sourced their infrastructure" -- and I guess the implied context of Facebook infrastructure was lost when I said "nothing to run on it," sorry. I meant Facebook code. So this is clear: Open Compute is good, and I'm appreciative of Facebook, just want to make sure we understand what "open infrastructure" means and its limitations in this case.
The latter is just a necessary tool. But, you're not going to threaten FB 's mission by simply building out an identical (or even superior) infrastructure. So, there's virtually zero-risk to them in open-sourcing it.
How does this affect libraries like preact?
Acting like this is some landmine that allows Facebook to just put anyone they dislike out of business is ridiculous. Other JavaScript frameworks like Angular and Ember don't even include patent clauses, so even if Facebook revokes the patent grant, that leaves you in the same position that you're in by default with Angular. The license even specifically allows you to counter-sue Facebook if they already have a lawsuit against you.
Any confusion that arises from deciding to depart from well-understood licenses is fairly laid at their door, in my view.
That's true; however,
> React isn't known to be patent-encumbered.
That's a useless assertion. Many patents only become known once the lawsuits start. Facebook has amassed a patent portfolio, and patents are a legal instrument that can only be used offensively.
Remember, the claim I was disputing was that "only a fool will use reactjs" because the patent license is conditional. All I'm saying is that I don't see any reason to be more concerned about React than, say, Angular.
Facebook is a (among many other things) a software company, and software companies do warfare with patents. It might be their least favorite weapon, one they have yet to use - but "unthinkable" can only refer to your beliefs -- it is actually extremely thinkable, even if at this point in time improbable.
I'm really concerned about zstd working its way into some future de-facto standard file format, though - I think the name "zstd" is marketing genius (of the evil kind).
(1) can afford to roll your own framework
(2) can afford the lawyers required to point out that this doesn't hold water
It's incredibly permissive (nearly the same as the MIT license), and does not allow for the concept of having it "revoked".
Would you believe that Apple today would use react in their products?
What would Steve Jobs say to someone who suggests using react in apple software/saas?
downvoting on HN is being abused here, just because someone is a big fan of reactjs and disagrees with me, they automatically downvote a valid opinion based on facts.
see for yourself, from react patent clause "The license granted hereunder will terminate, automatically and without notice,"
If you are in doubt, the license that could terminate is just the patent grant. The copyright license would remain in effect.
The TL;DR is: "That is just a patent license, and most OSS doesn't even include a patent license at all, so it seems weird to be super-concerned in this case in particular."
here's the issue when picking reactjs vs others (like vuejs)
Choice A. by picking reactjs I'm in a clear violation of FB patents, but I'm covered as long I don't sue FB.
Choice B. by picking others (like vuejs), I may or may not be violating FB patents, (virtualDOM has some prior art, as some people claim)
why it's so hard for people to understand that "May or Maynot" is a better choice of "definitely" violating FB patents in case I need to sue FB if they are killing my business by copying my patents.
I know that suing for patents is not best business model. But, having that weapon (even defensively) is better than not having one.
still people downvote for gray areas?
> Choice A. by picking reactjs I'm in a clear violation of FB patents
Please tell us what Facebook patents one is "violating" by using React.
your argument of where are the FB patents on react is an example of your naivety
my position all along has been, using other libs than react is LESS likely to violate FB patents, and thus gives more freedom to compete with FB. if that's your definition of load-of-crap, well, that's not my definition.