Thank you, Wordpress.[1]
1. We like React a lot with or without the license.
2. It's not our job to convince the world React's patent license is fine.
3. We're substantially moving away from React, including large rewrites.
...why are they moving away from React? I'm confused, do they believe using React implicitly supports it? They're already vocally supporting it.
I don't have an opinion or a dog in the race with regards to the React and patent license drama, but I legitimately don't understand why this blog post (or the underlying decisions) was written. In my opinion it feels like a huge deal to decide to rewrite a piece of production software, especially if you like the software already. So what am I missing?
Are they concerned that people won't use WordPress because it has React components? Does React's BSD + Patents license extend downstream like that?
EDIT: Thank you for downvoting me twice for asking an honest question folks...
> I think Facebook’s clause is actually clearer than many other approaches companies could take, and Facebook has been one of the better open source contributors out there. But we have a lot of problems to tackle, and convincing the world that Facebook’s patent clause is fine isn’t ours to take on. It’s their fight.
My interpretation is that due to the negative publicity that Facebook has garnered with their license, they didn't want to scare people away from using/building on top of their platform by using their library even though they themselves did not have a problem with the license.
It's understandable how that might be the final straw for Facebook when even people who don't have a problem with their license won't use their libraries for that reason.
And yes, the Patents part of that extends downstream to anything using it, that's the dangerous part of patents. It applies to everything that does that — even in independent implementations.
Yes, why would it not?
"Core WordPress updates go out to over a quarter of all websites, having them all inherit the patents clause isn’t something I’m comfortable with."
It's one thing to look at the license and guess that it's vanishingly unlikely you'll ever be in an intellectual property fight with FB (and it sounds like the counsel Automattic consulted with came to that conclusion for Automattic).
It's another thing to make that decision for everybody downstream using software that you distribute. Particularly when that's a reaaaally large number of people.
I'm on much less solid ground in speculating about more, but it's often interesting to watch the contents of speech when people are working to assure you of something:
"One nice thing about this apartment is that it's very secure." (That's interesting. Why is it important that this apartment is very secure? Is the neighborhood not so much secure?)
"This guy we're interviewing here is not being interviewed for your position." (That's interesting. Why do I need to know that, manager?)
In the case of this post, between the lines I potentially see something like:
"Hey FB, we don't feel threatened by the license, and you know, he who writes to code makes the rules, like Linus says. You're obviously doing what's right for you, from your point of view, and we're sure you know what's best for you, and if you're doing right by yourself, do you need to even ask if you're doing the right thing?
You do you, bro. And we're sure you won't be mad that we wanna let everybody else be themselves, too."
Not sure it's there, I could be reading more into it than I need to.
If you want to blame someone for the litigious culture in the US, blame John Q Public and the corporations he works for.
You're being an asswipe. There is no reason for you to respond this way. The lens upon which you view the world must be pretty god damned shallow to make these kinds of statements. If you want to be a fuckstick and reply like this, please find another community.
The last way we want people to be defending HN, even against perceived assholes, is by being assholes themselves. Would it really have cost you to make your point substantively?
https://wptavern.com/wordpress-new-gutenberg-editor-now-avai...
There's also already a theme that uses React: https://themes.redradar.net/foxhound/
With those two things you could build a pretty good web app. The only thing is you'd be in WordPress land and isn't glamorous.
FYI: this shipped in WordPress 4.7 as part of the core software, and is now available on every WordPress site. (e.g. https://www.wired.com/wp-json/)
> The only thing is you'd be in WordPress land and isn't glamorous.
We tried to shield REST API users from much of the nastiness of WordPress' backwards compatibility (inconsistent field naming, date weirdness, etc), but yeah, it's still not perfect.
(I'm the co-lead on the REST API focus, happy to answer any Qs!)
In this instance.
I don't think they should be particularly rewarded for this. I think we should keep in mind what it took to get to this point.
And that, absent such pressure, individual organizations and people, and perhaps our collective society, remain at their... "mercy?"
Remain under their thumb. Whether that thumb presses down this year. Or next. Or... we just don't know.
In other words, I'd remain cautious about whether and how far I move under their umbrella -- tech-wise, or other.
This is very clearly a response to WordPress. Nicely played Matt.
We have considered possible changes carefully, but we won't be changing our
default license or React's license at this time. We recognize that we may lose
some React community members because of this decision. We are sorry for that,
but we need to balance our desire to participate in open source with our desire
to protect ourselves from costly litigation.
[0] - https://code.facebook.com/posts/112130496157735/explaining-r...
Legal matters at big companies generally take months to resolve and come to consensus over. I can easily imagine their legal team evaluating all such scenarios that a change in license could hurt them (as they should), and that kind of research isn't something done in haste.
Sure, at your typical big public company. But Facebook voting control is firmly in the hands of Mark Zuckerberg, and he doesn't have to wait for approval of a board of directors. Just like when he decided to buy Instagram for $1 billion in a matter of days. If Mark detected developer sentiment shifting, he can move just as fast as he wants to stanch the bleeding.
how is react's popularity at all material to facebook's interests? at best it means you get more outside contributions, but you already have plenty of talent internally.
First, it increases the likelihood that the average programmer already is familiar with the tools they'd use at Facebook. It's useful for them to be able to hire people who already know React, Reason, etc. On occasion, they'll manage to find highly talented developers who either contribute to their projects or build useful related projects, and then they can make those people an offer. Even better, sometimes that's an entire startup they can acquihire.
Second, it increases the prestige of a job at Facebook. Most of the core public functionality of Facebook isn't particularly interesting to me, for example, but the stuff they're doing with OCaml is. The chance of me working there is still essentially nil but it's definitely less nil than it would be if I didn't know about projects like that.
Third, it gives them something really valuable to offer skilled devs -- the ability to become widely known and respected for your contributions to a popular open source project. That's worth a great deal to some people.
I can't pretend to know the exact rationale behind Facebook's decision to open-source React, but there are several things to gain from controlling a major piece of the web infrastructure: influence/clout with browser vendors (decisions that may negatively impact React's performance now threaten a huge percentage of the web, not just Facebook.com), the ability to introduce more and more Facebook-controlled technology with something like React as a shoehorn ("You liked React, try Flow..."), PR benefit/good vibes, and so forth.
Platform control is the real showdown among big software companies. It makes your company downright inextricable. Just ask Microsoft.
If I had to speculate, I'd say they did a ton of research on existing licenses on the route to BSD+Patent, and they already knew what the best alternative would be if it came to that.
You're welcome everybody! And thanks for the assist, Wordpress!
FB: "...we know that many teams went through the process of selecting an alternative library to React. We're sorry for the churn. We don't expect to win these teams back by making this change, but we do want to leave the door open."
This can seem like a response to the community at large, but can also be read as a direct response to Wordpress' comments:
WP: Automattic will also use whatever we choose for Gutenberg to rewrite Calypso — that will take a lot longer, and Automattic still has no issue with the patents clause, but the long-term consistency with core is worth more than a short-term hit to Automattic’s business from a rewrite. Core WordPress updates go out to over a quarter of all websites, having them all inherit the patents clause isn’t something I’m comfortable with.
Now if someone (i.e. an Actual, Impartial Lawyer) can explain if changing to MIT actually changes anything.
EDIT:
As others have pointed out, FB reaffirmed its decision to maintain the patents clause on Aug 18th (33 days ago): We recognize that we may lose some React community members because of this decision. [1] But they change their minds 8 days after the Matt published the On React and Wordpress article.
This pretty much proves that the decision to move to MIT was heavily influenced -- or perhaps in direct response to -- Wordpress' decision to ditch React.
[1]https://code.facebook.com/posts/112130496157735/explaining-r...
I believe the wording you are looking for is "strongly implies", because that's all it is, an implication. There is no proof. (and not even a boat to be seen ;).