[eganist]

> If you don't like it because it requires you to learn a workflow you are unfamiliar with, don't use it.

Unrelated to the technical side (which I haven't investigated in much depth yet as a third party to this discussion), I don't like it because of the patent license, which AFAICR is a valid concern for a non-trivial number of large firms.

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

[acemarke]

You might want to look at the official Facebook FAQ regarding that PATENTS clause ( https://code.facebook.com/pages/850928938376556 ), as well as this legal analysis: http://lu.is/blog/2016/10/31/reacts-license-necessary-and-op... . I also have links to further discussion on the PATENTS clause in my React links list: https://github.com/markerikson/react-redux-links/blob/master... .

[eganist]

Tons of large firms patent everything under the sun, Facebook included. There's no telling when those will come in conflict, and I don't want to be on the wrong side of that battle just to use a framework with alternatives available.

I can look at external analyses, but the firms I've spoken with have had their own IP folks examine it and have each made their own decisions, so I'm merely parroting the accounts of those I've spoken to.

Edit: my initial comment (thread root) sits in the negatives but this one is high in the positives. It's interesting observing what I can only conclude is a proxy battle between the technical crowd and the crowd that understands legal realities.

[yladiz]

The problem with the patents clause is that it's too broad wrt patents. If you have a valid patent that Facebook is infringing upon, no matter if it relates to React, Facebook revokes your right to use React. That's their prerogative, but it is generally too broad to allow some companies to actually use the library.

[davidjnelson]

That would be awful. Has this ever been used by Facebook, where a company had to strip react out?

[spicyj]

No.

[davidjnelson]

Cool, thanks for the info!

[jhall1468]

There are teams at Amazon and Google that use React. Honestly, the original patent license had some issues, but the new license seems to have alleviated concern for 2 of the remaining big 4. I don't know if MS uses it, but honestly 2/3 of the major tech firms are, and I can't imagine a world in which a concerning patent license is going to get passed the corporate lawyers at Google/Amazon.

[spicyj]

Microsoft certainly does.

https://github.com/Microsoft/react-native-windows

https://microsoft.github.io/code-push/

https://mspoweruser.com/skype-is-testing-a-new-android-app-w...

[eganist]

Microsoft also currently owns a stake in Facebook, it's worth noting. That stake used to be 1.6% of the company, though I don't know how much they currently hold.

[spicyj]

TIL.

[peller]

If this is a concern, maybe you could just use something like preact as a drop-in replacement for react?

https://github.com/developit/preact

[bryanlarsen]

How would that help? If Facebook has any patents on React, it's quite likely that preact is violating them. If you're using React then you're protected by the patent grant. If you're using preact then you aren't.

[peller]

Well, please correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it by using React you're essentially giving up your right to sue FB for infringement of any of your patents (assuming you wish to keep using React). True, by using something like preact I suppose there is the alternative risk you pointed out. But perhaps it's a tradeoff some businesses might find acceptable.

[TheCoelacanth]

You don't give up the right to sue them; you just lose the patent license if you do. If you use preact, you don't have the patent license at all, so you are in the same situation as if you used React and sued them over patents.

[peller]

Ah OK, thanks for the clarification. I stand corrected.