http://react-etc.net/entry/your-license-to-use-react-js-can-be-revoked-if-you-compete-with-facebook
Reactfags BTFO
>>55609431
This is why open source is such bullshit.
>>55609448
Facebook is terrified of competition
>>55609488
Of course it is. Zuckerberg is no Bill Gates. He has no business sense.
>>55609431
kek
wtf is the point of open-sourcing it then?
>>55609431
>55609431
>If you are using or considering using React in a project you might want to consult a lawyer. Because of the patent clause you are not allowed to do anything that constitutes as competing with Facebook. If you do take legal actions or in other ways challenge Facebook, your license to use React is immediately revoked.
>Your license is also revoked if you have any legal disputes if you have legal disputes with any other company using React. So if you're looking to create a Facebook killer with React, you might want to call up your lawyer. Technology wise there are other viable alternatives like Vue, Angular and Aurelia, so your venture won't fall because of this.
So basically it is a way for them to control the market? A fucking hate jews sometimes.
>>55609431
Is Zuck on of them lizard people?
>>55609655
He's jewish, yes.
>>55609655
I don't know, but he is definitely controlled by lizard people.
How else can you explain a kid who can barely code in PHP with no existing connection in the tech industry got billions of dollars in VC funding?
>>55609678
>How else can you explain a kid who can barely code in PHP with no existing connection in the tech industry got billions of dollars in VC funding?
Proximity to wealthy people. That's literally it. The younger they are the looser their pockets are as well.
THIS IS SUCH BULLSHIT
It's fucking BSD license, how the fuck can anyone revoke it.
>>55609705
It's not BSD licensed. It's licensed under BSD+patent, which is not a free license.
Is React easy to learn?
What's so special about it?
I see it listed on every job posting
>>55609753
It's a meme. Corporate manager types see Facebook attached to it and lose their shit.
> Use FOSS
> Get sued by Mark Shekelberg
Nice licence fags
>>55609729
It's in the PATENTS file, not in the LICENSE file, they don't mention it in the license file.
This is the LICENSE: https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/LICENSE
>Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification,
>are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
> * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this
> list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
> * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice,
> this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation
> and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
> * Neither the name Facebook nor the names of its contributors may be used to
> endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific
prior written permission.
>THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS...
What if somebody forks React? Following the license, they only have to include the LICENSE file, not the PATENTS one.
>>55609676
I'd smash, but his waifu looks so boring, that I probably won't even be able to get hard for a good 10 minutes.
>>55609448
Yeah, actually freakonomics had a recent episode about how these big companies nowadays who coincidentally have a lot of hands in Open Source, are effectively the New Gatekeepers. You cannot compete with them. You cannot be successful without them.
Pretty interesting desu but the episode kind of just didn't go that deep into it, as usual they stayed relatively near the surface just to get you thinking.
>>55609816
Wait, so this wouldn't hold in a country that doesn't uphold software patents, right?
>>55609844/*
Additional Grant of Patent Rights Version 2
"Software" means the React software distributed by Facebook, Inc.
Facebook, Inc. ("Facebook") hereby grants to each recipient of the Software
("you") a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, irrevocable
(subject to the termination provision below) license under any Necessary
Claims, to make, have made, use, sell, offer to sell, import, and otherwise
transfer the Software. For avoidance of doubt, no license is granted under
Facebook's rights in any patent claims that are infringed by (i) modifications
to the Software made by you or any third party or (ii) the Software in
combination with any software or other technology.
The license granted hereunder will terminate, automatically and without notice,
if you (or any of your subsidiaries, corporate affiliates or agents) initiate
directly or indirectly, or take a direct financial interest in, any Patent
Assertion: (i) against Facebook or any of its subsidiaries or corporate
affiliates, (ii) against any party if such Patent Assertion arises in whole or
in part from any software, technology, product or service of Facebook or any of
its subsidiaries or corporate affiliates, or (iii) against any party relating
to the Software. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if Facebook or any of its
subsidiaries or corporate affiliates files a lawsuit alleging patent
infringement against you in the first instance, and you respond by filing a
patent infringement counterclaim in that lawsuit against that party that is
unrelated to the Software, the license granted hereunder will not terminate
under section (i) of this paragraph due to such counterclaim.
A "Necessary Claim" is a claim of a patent owned by Facebook that is
necessarily infringed by the Software standing alone.
A "Patent Assertion" is any lawsuit or other action alleging direct, indirect,
or contributory infringement or inducement to infringe any patent, including a
cross-claim or counterclaim.
>>55609844
what country doesn't uphold software patents that also wouldn't bend over for facebook
>>55609874
china and russia.
also most of africa.
>>55609676
lel a golem and a goblin
>>55609753
It makes creating webapps easier
Its a 'hot tech' so everyone wants to use it to make their company look like they're on the bleeding edge of tech
Its part of the trend (cancerous trend, IMO) towards webapps for everything and javascript as the only language you'll ever need
>>55609785
React is not Free as in Freedom. This is the level of dicking the BSD license allows. Reminder that BSD is not an ally of your freedoms.
>>55609678
he's one of the successful Idea Guys
>>55609448
This. Free software or bust.
>bsdtards will defend thisq
>>55609678
Getting VC funding is fucking trivial. Try it yourself if you don't believe me. Even today you get money thrown at you as long as you're not a super turbo-autist.
>>55610581
is it? you just go and try to convince some retarded rich fag to throw money at you for a shitty """""""idea"""""""?
>>55610702
Yes, that's literally it. And since the people you'll be talking to are so rich they don't know what to do with their money, so long as you can convince them your idea has even an inkling of a chance of making it big if the stars align right, they'll give you millions each. Plus, since they don't have a clue what you're talking about, basically the only way to not impress them is if you sperg out and let your spaghetti flow out of your prockets at the same time.
>>55609874
There's probably 150 countries who don't give a fuck.
>>55609678
Go to a ivy league and the world opens up.
I would agree if he was at a state school
>>55610751
Are there legal repercussions to founding a "startup", getting a ton of VC, and then proceeding to do effectively nothing with it?
Secure a few million in VC, and pay yourself a good wage for a while while just generating memes and hype.
>>55610883
Happens all the time. SF is full of people like that.
>>55610883
They can sue you for the money they expect out of you, but you could just declare your company bankrupt before that happens. As >>55610899 says, people do exactly what you propose quite often.
Of course you never get to ever do legitimate business afterward with entities associated with the people you scam, but hey, it's probably worth it 9/10 times.
>>55609816
You would be guilty of patent infringement but not copyright infringement, presumably?
>>55610883
but why would you do that? you could convince a lot of people that your idea is the best thing ever.
look at twitter, for example. from what I've read, it LOSES money... and yet they are still alive. why? VC money. I've read that many of these tech startups keep losing money.
the owners make richer themselves, hire engineers, have some fun, are idolized...
meanwhile, most of us are retarded poorfags that will never, ever do shit like that. but that's another topic.
>>55610925
If the startup was an LLC, and you paid yourself a "fair" wage as the CEO of a small company, you personally couldn't be held liable for the loss, right?
>>55611029
Very true. Honestly, once you secure a ton of venture capital, you might as well try to make a decent business out of it and hope to get bought.
>>55611115
I don't think you even need to be an LLC. Of course, if you're seriously thinking about doing that, make sure to brush up on your legalese, or much better yet: go consult a lawyer.
>>55609448
Open Source has always been bullshit to steal free labour from mentally retarded developers.
Proper Free Software, with a FSF Recommended licence like GPL is the only way to be sure you aren't being cucked.
It's literally a condition that you must be able to do what you want with the software.
>>55609431
Good lord, how can anyone defend the BSD license after this?
>>55611227
I never truly appreciated the GPL until now.
>>55611227
>you must be able to do what you want with the software
>can't use a different license if you want
>>55610883
That's most startups.
But everyone who says it's easy to get VC funding is retarded.
The people who get VC money easily are:
>People with former startup experience
>Went to an Ivy League (Stanford=instance VC money)
>Worked at Google, Amazon, Apple, etc.
But there are different types of startups based on regional features.
I work in DC, and I'm starting to see the "gubmint" flavor of startup.
You get a DoD contract, and you your company is set for life.
>>55609842
link?
>>55611295
exactly
in a fair world, respecting other people's freedom is not optional
>>55611340
People are free to not use your software if they wish. Publishing something under your own license can't restrict someone else's freedom any more than not publishing it at all.
>>55609508
>bill gates didn't stamp out competition
>>55611295
This is pedantics.
There are minor exceptions to your freedom, but these are only in place to prevent you from restricting the freedom of others.
Overall, you still end guaranteed much more freedom than what you can be assured with permissive licences like BSD.
I can take a permissively licenced project (even if it is created by you), extend it and then relicence to lock you out.
This simple trick is used by Google, Apple, Facebook, you name it.
The whole idea of the GPL is to ensure that everyone that uses your software is given the same freedoms you gave the first person.
The one freedom you don't get is the freedom to take freedom away from other people.
>>55611348
if you don't personally like GPL, don't use it
there, you have your freedom
>>55611326
None of these apply to me and I got over 100m without even trying.
>>55611326
I work for the DoD (more like owned by) and I know exactly what you mean.
It's crazy how much money contractors are making off of "cyber support".
>>55611412
Was it a matter of knowing the right people?
>>55611379
You extending a fork of the project doesn't change the license on the initial project. My options are now the same as if you hadn't done anything at all: I can choose to use the initial project, or not.
I'm pretty sure they cannot revoke your right to use the software since the actual license states nowhere that they have that ability. The license says as long as you comply with the terms outlined you have the right to use the software.
https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/LICENSE
Patents are a different matter but I think if someone tried to bring them to court they could actually stand a chance
>>55611454
>if someone tried to bring them to court they could actually stand a chance
I mean, if they can affor several thousands on lawyers
I know facebook can
>>55611421
Not even, or not really. Just go to conferences related to your domain and talk to people, before you know it you're showered in money. That's how I did it.
Friend of mine who opened a startup in the UK recently simply went for the conventional route and mostly contacted firms, although he also gave talks.
>>55611393
I don't mind the GPL, I just don't think it's a good example of a "free" license. However, I would consider it a philanthropic license, which has its own benefits.
>>55611498
Aw shit I forgot about this.
This works in DC as well.
Giving talks is a much cheaper way. Talkers often get to go to these conferences for free.
Talkers obviously get more attention and you can shill your startup idea during the talk.
Conferences are pretty expensive, with good ones costing $200-$500 per ticket.
This works in your benefit as it makes people assume that you have at least some money.
>>55611473
The BSD license is so simple that it's hard to argue against it. I'm not really completely sure but I think facebook might have fucked themselves here by using that license rather than one that explicitly states they reserve the rights to their patents. It will probably lead to some interesting court cases in the future, hopefully it leads to software patents being thrown out so these things are impossible in the future.
>>55611615
Software patents will never be thrown out of jewish corporate america. You need to move elsewhere if you want to escape them.
>>55611423
If you accept that as just, then so be it.
I am just pointing out that if you do contribute to permissive projects, you have no assurance that you are not contributing to a competing non-free project (and with projects run by companies like Facebook or Apple, you are practically guaranteed that you are).
If you are developing to promote Software Freedom, it doesn't make sense to contribute to the non-free software which you are trying to prevent.
If you are developing because you are being paid or care little about Software Freedom, it doesn't matter as much.
>>55609676
>yoko ono
>>55609655
What is lizard people? Is it American thing ?
>>55609676
He always looks so awkward.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yn0mglH7XLk
>>55611662
>If you are developing to promote Software Freedom, it doesn't make sense to contribute to the non-free software which you are trying to prevent.
I think this is a hasty overgeneralization. For example, by implementing support for a free format (required for compatibility with free software) in a proprietary video player in wide deployment, you can help facilitate a transition to said free format. If the proprietary mainstream programs don't support interoperation with free software, it's not the free software that will win.
Secondly, if you contribute to a high-quality BSD library that is used in both proprietary and free programs, the free programs also benefit. Exclusively limiting yourself to GPL'd libraries only will decrease your software quality much in the same way that you're trying to decrease the software quality of proprietary programs.
Finally, by contributing to and developing high quality free software (no matter what license), you're still actively encouraging the growth of free software by leading as an example.
Refusing to commit to a project simply because it's BSD-licensed is incredibly short-sighted and naive.
>Your license to use React.js is revoked if you compete with Facebook
It's actually not actually that simple. They cannot revoke your rights to the software ever but they can revoke your rights to their patents if you ever sue them for patent infringement. This gives them the ability to retaliate, or counter-sue for patent infringement even if you were previously following the license.
>>55611809
>It's actually not actually that simple.
It's not actually that simple.*
>>55611696
It's a euphemism for jew, like "reptilian."
>>55609753
>What's so special about it?
It's not completely revolutionary, but its key feature is it has a concept of a virtual DOM.
This means rather than the framework thrashing the DOM in realtime, it instead updates a virtual DOM in memory (or disk) and then periodically updates the real DOM in one push. This solves responsiveness in large scale / big-data apps (Facebook, or a flight booking app, for example).
Now if you don't need that level of smart DOM management, then maybe ReactJewS isnt for you.
>>55611764
I'll agree with your first point.
Having things like implementations of Vorbis decoders under a permissive licence makes sense, which is something even the strictest of GNU 'people' agree with (stallman does, for example).
One would note that regardless of the licence, most major non-free programs still won't implement things like Vorbis for strategic reasons, so its mostly a moot point.
I'll disagree with the second point though.
It's this reluctant acceptance of permissive licences that has made them so prolific.
Although I'm not suggesting that permissive software should be ignored. I've seen the argument that BSD software should be forked into copyleft licences before being contributed to, which certainly has some merit where it can be done.
In an ideal world permissive licences would be perfectly fine, but non-free developers have demonstrated time and again that they are a lot more aggressive than free software developers.
Where it is possible, I personally believe that copyleft licences should be used (with the previously mentioned exception), mainly because there is a lot of permissive code (written with the best of intentions) in software which could be considered practically toxic, freedom wise.
Apple stuff is a great example of where permissive licenses end up. They take the benefits of software freedom, but pass on literally none in many cases (see the iPhone).
"Javascript was a mistake" - John Mozilla
>not just using angular to make a facebook clone and react to make a google clone
>>55612376
>>55611737
I'm surprised he doesn't have bodyguards or people protecting him from random people going to his property
It's just a patent retaliation clause as far as I can tell. Apache v2 has this, and it's one of the FSF's favored non-copyleft licenses.
>>55609448
Your fault for not using the GPL.
half of /g/
>hurr GPL is botnet, MIT license gives you REAL freedom
now
>Open source is such bullshit
>>55609844
But that means your company can't do business with any of the big countries that do.
If you plan on only staying in China, sure. Thinking of doing business with the US (Japan, UK, etc), haha.
>>55610883
Something like 99% of startups fail.
The "successful" "entrepreneurs" have around 50-70% of their startups fail.
Legal repercussions? What are those? What are you, black and poor?
>>55611615
What are you talking about? BSD/MIT is known to not protect against patents, if you use it when the GPL exists you obviously aren't intending to give up patent rights.
Maybe if Google/other big company with lots of counter patents were to fight the case, they would have a chance of winning, but anyone else would just get crushed.
/g/entlemen don't let fellow /g/entlemen use freedom-denying software.
>>55611809
>they can revoke your rights to their patents if they don't like you
Fixed.
Is GPL still a cancer?
>>55613013
Of course, keep using a permissive license like BSD and prepare your anus for patent court.
>>55613013
yes, but it's a good kind of cancer
>>55612995
>if you use it when the GPL exists you obviously aren't intending to give up patent rights.
That hasn't been clearly defined yet. If a piece of software explicitly depends on patent encumbered stuff then releasing that patent encumbered software under a license similar to BSD and not including a clause mentioning that to the end user is kind of inviting people to infringe on your patents. It could be argued that you implicitly granted a license to use your patented software because of the other license.
>>55609431
>just now finding out about this
This has been widely known since React was open sourced.
>>55613077
>It could be argued that you implicitly granted a license to use your patented software because of the other license.
Not if you don't have a team of highly paid lawyers.
Any company big enough to be able to fight this wouldn't be stupid enough to use ambiguously licensed software.
>give away for free a framework with thousands of hours of work behind it
>NEET freetards complain when they rightfully impose limitations
Fucking commie leeching retards. Write your own if you don't like it. Oh wait, most of you haven't contributed *anything* to open source projects.
>>55613032
It's the same kind of cancer the french revolution was
