Slashdot Mirror


WordPress Ditches ReactJS Over Facebook's Patent Clause (techcrunch.com)

An anonymous reader quote TechCrunch: Matt Mullenweg, the co-founder of the popular open source web publishing software WordPress, has said the community will be pulling away from using Facebook's React JavaScript library over concerns about a patent clause in Facebook's open source license. In a blog post explaining the decision yesterday, Mullenweg said he had hoped to officially adopt React for WordPress -- noting that Automattic, the company behind WordPress.com which he also founded, had already used React for the Calypso ground-up rewrite of WordPress.com a few years ago, while the WordPress community had started using it for its major Gutenberg core project.

But he said he has changed his mind after seeing Facebook dig in behind the patent clause -- which was recently added to the Apache Software Foundation's list of disallowed licenses... [H]e writes that he cannot, in good conscience, require users of the very widely used open source WordPress software to inherit the patent clause and associated legal risk. So he's made the decision to ditch React.

Facebook can revoke their license if a React user challenges Facebook's patents.

72 comments

  1. Now Facebook Wouldn't... by Captain+Ramage · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Facebook wouldn't do anything untoward, would they? I mean, they were founded on the utmost propriety and honesty, right?

    1. Re: Now Facebook Wouldn't... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, License Lives Matter!

    2. Re:Now Facebook Wouldn't... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      7 digit UID user think anyone cares what they think? LOL.

    3. Re: Now Facebook Wouldn't... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ^ butthurt

  2. Vue.js by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Vue.js is so,much better!

  3. Vue framework is great. by SysEngineer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    React is is JavaScript wrapping HTML. Vue is easy to understand because it wraps HTML with JS. There are some state issues that vuex does not solve. but it is much better then React.

    1. Re:Vue framework is great. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      React is is JavaScript wrapping HTML. Vue is easy to understand because it wraps HTML with JS.

      So.......they are both Javascript wrapping html? Is that what you mean?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:Vue framework is great. by Jammerwoch · · Score: 1

      At best, this statement is a gross oversimplification (that React/Vue "wrap" HTML) and at worst, completely wrong. React provides a construction library for the creation of a virtual DOM (which is not the same thing as HTML), and allows changes to the virtual DOM to reconciled with the actual DOM. Vue also uses a virtual DOM, but I have less experience with Vue and so can't speak authoritatively. React also provides a small-footprint programming paradigm and lifecycle management (again, similar to Vue).

      There's a lot to like about Vue, but having used both, my team abandoned Vue for React, and have found much higher productivity and developer satisfaction with the latter.

  4. Link To The Patent Clause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
  5. Now if only by Dracos · · Score: 0

    We could get the hordes of faux developers to ditch WordPress (because it's badly architected, terribly written, antiquated, insecure-by-design garbage), the universe would be a better place.

    And before anyone tries, "But it's the most popular!" is a defense against none of those truths.

    1. Re: Now if only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Explain.

      What makes it badly-architected? The hooks and actions philosophy is quite elegant.

      What makes it insecure by design? Do you mean PHP?

    2. Re:Now if only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We could get the hordes of faux developers to ditch WordPress (because it's badly architected, terribly written, antiquated, insecure-by-design garbage), the universe would be a better place.

      And before anyone tries, "But it's the most popular!" is a defense against none of those truths.

      That Windows, not Wordpress. They both start & end with the same letters but aren't the same thing

    3. Re:Now if only by Megol · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'll just note that "antiquated" is a really crap reason to dislike something...

    4. Re:Now if only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We could get the hordes of faux developers to ditch Javascript (because it's badly architected, terribly written, antiquated, insecure-by-design garbage), the universe would be a better place.

      And before anyone tries, "But it's the most popular!" is a defense against none of those truths.

    5. Re: Now if only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The hooks and actions philosophy is quite elegant? Did you forget a sarcasm tag? Yeah about as elegant as the goto statment, great for spaghetti code

    6. Re:Now if only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But very similar indeed

    7. Re: Now if only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes it insecure by design? Do you mean PHP?

      Yes.

    8. Re:Now if only by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I'll just note that "antiquated" is a really crap reason to dislike something...

      It's a perfectly fine reason when the thing is not standardized somehow. Old standards are still useful forever, but old non-standards are confusing forever.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re: Now if only by mSparks43 · · Score: 1

      Wordpress is to naive developers as credit is to naive investors.

      Everything is great until the SHTF.

    10. Re: Now if only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not an explanation as to why it is badly-architected. It's just a rant.

      The problem that is CMSes needing to fully trust third party plugins, for example, is not well solved elsewhere.

      Is any major CMS not 'insecure by design'?

    11. Re: Now if only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any CMS that is fully customisable in a modular way needs to do something to make it possible to augment the whole flow of the site.

      The alternatives is 'here, use my subclass' which is a pretty unscalable approach for third party plugins (because to do it right involves live code rewriting).

      So, yes, hooks an actions is _quite_ elegant. Not perfect, but a better way to say 'get in right as it starts and qualify this core query with this clause', for example if you want to make a built-in content index show all entries alphabetically.

      The solution to the spaghetti is to write better documentation.

    12. Re: Now if only by slazzy · · Score: 1

      Are you saying that wordpress isn't the most popular cms and blogging platform? What is?

      --
      Website Just Down For Me? Find out
    13. Re: Now if only by mSparks43 · · Score: 1

      You could run "untrusted" third party plugins just fine if it was well architected, so you kinda answered many questions in one go.

      Its great if you are building "nothing of value", so it's great for naive, inexperienced developers building nothing of value. Kinda like Flash back in the day.

  6. Good for FB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a big company, Facebook has a big target painted on them. It's normal that they seek to protect themselves from nearly certain litigation. Perhaps the Open Source community should become more mature and accept this reality. A license is not everything.

    1. Re:Good for FB by Skinkie · · Score: 1

      A license-invalidation could also have been written far more viral, a patent claim against any committer to the source code would result in invalidation. Add such paragraph to any project with significant traction, and with some positive thinking you might kill the entire patent-legal system.[/dreaming]

      --
      Support Eachother, Copy Dutch Property!
    2. Re:Good for FB by infolation · · Score: 1

      To a certain extent they painted their own target. And, because the fuzzy border between legal and illegal is often the most profitable, they seem to have chosen to cover every square inch of their exterior surface with target.

      They have no more interest in helping the open-source community than in altruistically providing net-neutral, balloon-internet to India.

    3. Re:Good for FB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      As a big company, Facebook has a big target painted on them. It's normal that they seek to protect themselves from nearly certain litigation.

      Users are rejecting ReactJS, because suppose they wrote a patent-protected $1B website in ReactJS, Facebook can swoop in and copy their website. If the website sues FB, they can't because, that's what ReactJS's license says (users of React cannot sue FB).

      FB is being predatory here, maybe trying create a backdoor in the React license that allows them to copy the next Snapchat like website/app.

    4. Re:Good for FB by HiThere · · Score: 1

      They've got a right to their license if they wrote it, but that doesn't cause me to accept it. I just won't blame them for *that*. I reserve the right to blame them for other things independent of that.

      P.S.: As a bit company, Facebook is in a good position to be a big bully. So being dubious about giving the actual legal ground is merely sensible.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    5. Re:Good for FB by Luthair · · Score: 1

      Do you mean literally copy? As in source code or identical layout? if so that isn't true.

    6. Re:Good for FB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BS.

      It's about not suing FB in regards to patents only.
      Won't stop anyone suing them for breach of copyright, or anything else.

  7. This is sucking more and more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    We're moving to React, and in the past month we've lost our two best developers because of this. Two more are threatening to sue since their offer letters said they wouldn't be required to work with anything that wasn't open source. I feel the same way and might join them. Facebook is really doing a lot of damage to React with this stupidity.

    1. Re:This is sucking more and more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the past month my wife and daughter left me because of this. And my dog is threatening to sue, since I'd promised her she wouldn't have to be owned by anyone who used non-open source-licensed software. Facebook is really doing a lot of damage to my marriage with this stupidity.

    2. Re:This is sucking more and more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law. -- Roy Santoro

      Fortune cookie at bottom of this article right now

    3. Re:This is sucking more and more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the past month my wife and daughter left me because of this. And my dog is threatening to sue, since I'd promised her she wouldn't have to be owned by anyone who used non-open source-licensed software. Facebook is really doing a lot of damage to my marriage with this stupidity.

      Sorry, Steve Bannon but you did that to yourself. Now go suck your own cock.

    4. Re:This is sucking more and more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First AC is lucky. I punched an eye out in a fit of rage. Since then me bowels have backed up and I got the roids. It's a bout of overreactive roid rage.

    5. Re:This is sucking more and more by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Those guys are stupid, unless their contracts said that they wouldn't be required to work with anything that wasn't under an OSI approved license. Nothing I've heard indicates that the software has become close source, merely that it's become too dangerous to depend on.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    6. Re:This is sucking more and more by Hognoxious · · Score: 0

      Found the Aspie!

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  8. Apps! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apps apping apps but facebook sucks so no apps apping that app.

  9. WordPress is right by u19925 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    IANAL but I think WP is right. I don't know WP that much, so I will give example Apache. Assume Apache embeds FB code in their product and IBM uses that to create non open-source software and sell to Amazon. Amazon then sues FB for some e-commerce patent and now Amazon loses license to use IBM software if ReactJS has any FB patent. But Amazon already paid to IBM, so IBM will have to now defend it. Surely, IBM does not want to do it and being a member of Apache, it will tell Apache not to consume ReactJS. Replace Apache with any open source software and IBM with any non open-source software company and Amazon with a customer of this non open-source software company. FB needs to come clean if it wants to truly contribute to open source.

    1. Re:WordPress is right by jcfandino · · Score: 1

      I don't think that's exactly right, Amazon wouldn't loose the license to the software (the BSD), but they would loose any Facebook patent license that ReactJs is potentially infringing, and then Facebook would sue back on those patents. Source.
      Still seems a risk and I think Apache made the right choice banning this license.

    2. Re:WordPress is right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well instead of "loose"-ing things maybe they should make sure to tighten it up first?

    3. Re: WordPress is right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sometimes loose is the first step before tightening.

    4. Re:WordPress is right by u19925 · · Score: 1

      I said precisely that. Read it again! "Amazon loses license to use IBM software if ReactJS has any FB patent"

    5. Re:WordPress is right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is some seriously convoluted bullshit you got going there.

  10. WP should use Polymer for the Dashboard by Qbertino · · Score: 1

    I'd love to see them use Polymer for the Dashboard. It's the better toolkit anyway, IMHO.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
  11. Facebook should be shunned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's now generally recognized that Facebook is a cancer on the free Internet and one of the most influential exponents of the surveillance-based economy. I think it's incumbent on all technologists who care about these issues to shun Facebook and its minions, associates, and employees. Do not use their open source projects, depend on their services, allow them to publish or speak at your conferences, or hire people who have worked there. If you work for them, quit and find a more respectable occupation, because you are directly enabling and profiting by the exploitation and abuse of everyone around you.

  12. The problem is the SCOPE of the revocation by davide+marney · · Score: 4, Informative

    Not a lawer obviously, but my read is that both Apache and FB have a provision that says one's grant to use its software is revoked if you sue them for patent infringement. The difference is that Apache's revocation is limited to the work itself, whereas FB's revocation is unlimited: if you sue FB for the infringement of *any* patent, then your grant to React is revoked.

    So: both have a poison pill. But if you incorporate React into a product that is going to be used by a lot of downstream people, then you are putting them all at risk of losing permission to use React, just because they use your product. Not nice.

    The solution is to claw back the scope. FB can still get all the protection it needs, but it has to limit that protection to one specific product at a time. It can't use React as the trojan horse to win patent protection across the board.

    Good call, WordPress.

    --
    "We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
    1. Re:The problem is the SCOPE of the revocation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except if FB used just the BSD license without a patent clause, they would still have the power to sue any React user for patent infringement—a copyright license doesn't automatically grant patent use. By adding in a patent clause, Facebook is giving ADDITIONAL protection over the BSD.

    2. Re:The problem is the SCOPE of the revocation by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      But if you incorporate React into a product that is going to be used by a lot of downstream people, then you are putting them all at risk of losing permission to use React, just because they use your product. Not nice.

      Not just because they use your product, but because they use your product and sue one of the upstreams for patent infringement. It's explicitly both conditions.

      I support Facebook's attempt here to defuse the disaster that is software patents, but I can also see how this more activist license is an encumbrance for downstream users, like GPLv3 is.

      I hope Facebook doesn't back down - protecting Facebook from patent trolls is a good funding mechanism for their open source teams - but it's also good to have competition so the market can indicate if these terms are worth it to users. Personally, I'm not going to be suing Facebook (or anybody) with any of my companies for software patent infringement, so reducing the power of software patents overall decreases my total risk by some small measure.

      Hrm - I generally use WTFPLv2 but maybe WTFPLv2+lawsuits is more sensible. In AnCapistan WTFPLv2 is all we'd ever need.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  13. its at GM at facebook with an ivy league degree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no worries. reactjs was cool when I did the plausability dev test & review 6 months ago and saw the writing on the wall too.. had to move on..

    the cause of the facebook bs is a GM at facebook with an ivy league degree and bad ethics just carving out his silo or award in advance.
    same happened at microsoft 20 years ago when everything cool went out the window like the baby and the bathwater.. ballmer screwed the pooch and I told him so too and he just smirked...

    if you can't hurt them they won't listen..

  14. Facebook Does not let you copy/save anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't use their app, only use their mobile site. It doesn't let you long press to highlight and copy text. Does let you save photos.

    Very anti-social

  15. WordPress going to do by diamondmagic · · Score: 1

    Reminder this is the same Wordpress that believes they own the copyright on any template that works with Wordpress, even if it was written from scratch and doesn't contain any derivative works.

    Whatever problem WordPress has with licensing, they helped fuel it.

    And what's WordPress planning anyways, suing Facebook for patent infringement sometime down the road?

    1. Re: WordPress going to do by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      Your argument is: WordPress is bad. Therefore, Facebook being bad is not so bad anymore.

      This is a bad and stupid excuse. Children try that pattern, like Timmy did also take a cookie. Still cookie stealing is forbidden no matter what.

    2. Re: WordPress going to do by diamondmagic · · Score: 1

      No, I'm calling them a hypocrite.

    3. Re:WordPress going to do by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Reminder this is the same Wordpress that believes they own the copyright on any template that works with Wordpress, even if it was written from scratch and doesn't contain any derivative works.

      Do you have a source for WordPress claiming copyright ownership of all themes? I've used WordPress quite extensively and have never heard of this.

      And what's WordPress planning anyways, suing Facebook for patent infringement sometime down the road?

      They're protecting their users. Suppose WordPress kept using ReactJS and I used WordPress. Now, I decide to sue Facebook for violating some patent of mine. Due to Facebook's licensing, I'd lose my license to use ReactJS and, thus, wouldn't be able to use WordPress. All WordPress-based sites of mine would immediately need to come down lest Facebook sue me back. It's a method of suppressing patent infringement lawsuits. By WordPress switching from ReactJS to an alternative, they protect their users from this.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    4. Re: WordPress going to do by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      So you agree that this behavior is inacceptable.

    5. Re:WordPress going to do by diamondmagic · · Score: 1

      Do you have a source for WordPress claiming copyright ownership of all themes? I've used WordPress quite extensively and have never heard of this.

      https://wordpress.org/news/200... "One sentence summary: PHP in WordPress themes must be GPL, artwork and CSS may be but are not required." The only way someone can set conditions on the work you're working with is if they have some sort of copyright claim on it. If you fork a WordPress theme, then they have such a claim and can say "Derivatives must be GPL as a condition of redistribution". They still claim this even if you wrote a theme from scratch.

      They're protecting their users. Suppose WordPress kept using ReactJS and I used WordPress. Now, I decide to sue Facebook for violating some patent of mine. Due to Facebook's licensing, I'd lose my license to use ReactJS and, thus, wouldn't be able to use WordPress. All WordPress-based sites of mine would immediately need to come down lest Facebook sue me back. It's a method of suppressing patent infringement lawsuits. By WordPress switching from ReactJS to an alternative, they protect their users from this.

      If you believe software patents are bullshit (as I do) and you release everything as prior art, then what Facebook is doing can literally never impact you.

      The kinds of people this will impact are companies who love patents and regularly file lawsuits about infringement - it would hinder them from doing so.

      So I don't really see the problem.

  16. In this context... by mha · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here is a link to a question that sheds some light on aspects pretty much always overlooked in discussions. Most people don't seem to understand what the issue is because very few people participating in these discussions own patents or ever thought much about it.

    https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/14337/q-about-consequences-of-a-software-license-amendment-regarding-patents-facebook

    Basically, the issue is this:

    If a company, let's say a biotech company, owns patents - not on software, on _anything_ - finds that Facebook infringes on their patent they cannot sue them if they happen to use one of Facebook'S projects. So if Facebook were to start a spinoff that uses IP from the biomedical company they can do so, they wrote a blank check fro themselves. You have to trust them not to do that.

    The above is not a statement of fact, it's the question that still is open (see link). The one answer there from yesterday (the Q itself is from Oct 2016) does not actually answer it either.

    1. Re:In this context... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dare Facebook to answer it directly. Sooner would be better than later.

    2. Re: In this context... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not what the clause says (I just read it). It says that you lose the right to protection from FB suing you over the patents for concepts written into React. So if you sued Facebook over some other patent then you can be sued for patent infringement over React. FB does not automatically own your IP in general. Even if it did, I suspect a court would strike that down as overly broad. But it doesn't say that.

      Interestingly, since BSD doesn't offer patent litigation protection, you could interpret it as saying that FB will not arbitrarily sue you for using the patents within React just because it's having a bad day. However, I think trying to do so on a whim would fail, as open sourcing, then suing for infringement would not likely pass muster in court (IANAL). So currently FB would have a hard time suing over those parents, but thus clause means it could stop you using React as well, or sue if you continued, and that could be quite chastening for a company.

      BSD doesn't offer warranty against suits in general, but the main risk would be software developers infringing on someone else's patents.

    3. Re: In this context... by truedfx · · Score: 1
      In the PATENTS file, I see:

      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.

      You're right that it reads "relating to the software", but this only applies to (iii), not (i) or (ii).

    4. Re:In this context... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because something is written doesn't make it enforceable. Parking garages are liable for damage to you car regardless of what the parking stub says.

  17. Next job by cyber-vandal · · Score: 2

    Decouple it from MySQL.

    1. Re:Next job by nickersonm · · Score: 1

      You can already run it on MariaDB, which is a binary drop-in replacement for MySQL and not owned by Oracle.

  18. What are they replacing it with? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they've not decided.

    would've been nice if the summary covered it.

  19. a pox on both by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    React sucks way less than wordpress but both are bloated job insurance kludges. Yeah I do both for money.

  20. I suggested Mithril.js in the issue Matt linked to by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 2

    That was two years ago. I commented on that on his blog here: https://ma.tt/2017/09/on-react...

    But Vue.js has so much buzz right now and caters to people who like writing HTML-ish templates, I'd expect Automattic will go with that -- instead of Mithril.js which I feel is a better technical choice for people who prefer their UIs are defined entirety by JavaScript/TypeScript.

    The below is from my comment a month ago:
    https://news.ycombinator.com/i...

    Personally, I feel templating approaches to making JavaScript-powered UIs like React's JSX or Angular's own templating approach or the templating systems in many other UI systems are obsolete. Modern webapps can use Mithril+Tachyons+JavaScript/TypeScript to write components in single files where all the code is just JavaScript/TypeScript. Such apps don't need to be partially written in either CSS and some non-standard variant of HTML that reimplements part of a programming language (badly). (Well, there may be a tiny bit of custom CSS needed on top of Tachyons, but very little.)

    Here is an example of a coding playground I wrote that way with several examples in it which use that approach: http://rawgit.com/pdfernhout/T...

    So, by writing UIs using HyperScript (plus a vdom library), you can potentially (with some work) replace a backend like Mithril with almost any other vdom or even a non-vdom solution. So, that is another way I mitigate this risk when I have a choice.

    Granted, I know many web developers grew up on tweaking HTML and love HTML-looking templates and so they love JSX or whatever and are happy to ignore how hard it is to refactor such non-code stuff in the middle of their applications or validate it (granted, some IDEs are getting better at that). But I came to web development from desktop and embedded development working with systems where you (usually) generated UIs directly from code (e.g. using Swing, Tk, wxWidgets, and so on). I like the idea that standard tools can help me refactor all the code I work on and detect many inconsistencies.

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.