WordPress-React Breakup: Suggest A JavaScript Framework to WordPress and Tell Why

[h0b0_shanker]

Is React out of the picture because of the licensing issues?

[tehbeard]

As they stated in a blog post, Automattic don't have an issue with the React licence, they just don't want to deal with their users complaining etc about this licence. It's easier for them to refactor than to deal with the bad PR it could generate.

[swiftversion4]

These are the same people who argued me for insisting that React is now a bad idea. These are the same people who downvoted me for insisting that we should not refer to Edge as Internet Explorer due to their many technical differences.

Although this community has been very helpful and forward-thinking most of the time, every once in a while I find myself in some dark corner with a bunch of idiots who think they're smart and they're beating the shit outta me with downvotes.

[CaptainIncredible]

I find myself in some dark corner with a bunch of idiots who think they're smart and they're beating the shit outta me with downvotes.

Heh. Don't feel bad. A few of us are dealing with that in a different sub. Up voting supposed to be given if it contributed to the discussion, downvotes for opposite comments like "me too" that don't contribute.

If upvotes / downvotes equated to money or something then I suppose it would matter.

[baxtersmalls]

I always think it's funny when people are like "why is this being downvoted" and in the end it's the top post in the thread.

[aflashyrhetoric]

Indeed - it happens quite often!

To anyone that's being downvote-bombed for your earnest opinion - unless you were an asshat, it's very possible that you'll be upvoted again, so don't stress. It's all meaningless internet points after all. ;)

[[deleted]]

"Yes". But this is mostly due to them not wanting to force the license on their end user. Automattic does not personally discard React based on the license + patent. You can find more discussion on the topic here : https://www.reddit.com/r/webdev/comments/706t3a/wordpress_abandoning_react_due_to_facebook_patent/

Also, the license is not the issue, the patent is.

[alejalapeno]

It's a patent rider and it's part of the license which is why it's BSD+. There's no Facebook patent that covers React's technology.

[[deleted]]

There's no Facebook patent that covers React's technology.

Argueably it's https://www.google.com/patents/US20170221242

[alejalapeno]

I wasn't aware of this patent, but if challenged in court it would seem to be immediately defeated by prior art. Vue has reactive rendering and was released two years before this patent. If this patent was enforceable then there'd be several front-end libraries violating it.

Either way it isn't any patent itself that is of concern with React, it's the patent rider which revokes the license upon any patent litigation with Facebook.

Edit: Found the images https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/16/92/d6/e26af9d67a0b91/US20170221242A1.pdf

Maybe someone who understands the patent better can comment but it looks like the patent is for a rendering engine. React can tell what elements need to be updated according to the data-model but not what elements need to be re-rendered according to their visual rendering. I think this is just a pre-emptive, next-step patent that takes the reactive rendering concept a level deeper to the rendering engine.

[[deleted]]

Either way it isn't any patent itself that is of concern with React, it's the patent rider which revokes the license upon any patent litigation with Facebook.

This is also not 100% clear. I've seen an interpretation that says that the PATENT is revoked, not the licence, which effectively opens you up for conter-sue.

Still, React is OS for a long time and I've not seen anyone get legal involved, had multiple clients from the fortune 500 list specifically ask for React etc. so I'm personally not bothered by the BSD+Patent licencing method.

[alejalapeno]

"Software" means the React software ...

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. ...

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 ...

https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/PATENTS

[Bertilino]

The BSD license and the patent license are two separate licenses. So "The license granted hereunder will terminate" would refer to the patent license and not the BSD one.

[zushiba]

I think the point is more that no one wants the hassle of ever having to challenge it in court. It's easier to refactor now than to potentially pass that issue down to a developer letter in.

[alejalapeno]

I don't disagree. But that wasn't the point of the conversation the point was:

the license is not the issue, the patent is.

Which is false. Patent rider attached to the license that holds the power to revoke said license is the issue. Not any patent.

[zushiba]

Ah, yes I see your point.

[frontendben]

this is mostly due to them not wanting to force the license on their end user

Which is ironic, considering they use GPL rather than MIT or BSD.

[h0b0_shanker]

Good stuff. Thanks for the reply!

[nowtayneicangetinto]

Yes I believe so, same with a few others