[whoisjuan]

From all the S-1s I have read, this seems like a typical disclaimer. More than anything is a guidance on the use of OSS and the risk that comes from using non-propietary technology (which includes releasing software written on top of the questioned technology). The way I see it, it's more of an indication on potential future litigation (e.g: Google vs Oracle), not so much of the cost of re-writing software, although I'm sure this is included because it seems like the reasonable thing to do if you're using software with a license that is potentially harmful to your business' economic interests.

This is why companies care about OSS licenses and sudden changes in those licenses. It's not out of pettiness. Automattic dropped React just for this very reason.

[sah2ed]

> This is why companies care about OSS licenses and sudden changes in those licenses. It's not out of pettiness. Automattic dropped React just for this very reason.

I believe the blog post [0] by the Automattic CEO where he announced plans to drop React played a significant role in causing Facebook to re-evaluate [1] the React license terms, considering that at that time, WordPress powered more than 25% of all websites.

[0]: https://ma.tt/2017/09/on-react-and-wordpress/

[1]: https://code.fb.com/web/relicensing-react-jest-flow-and-immu...

[sbr464]

Sorry, but your info is a bit out of date. The latest Wordpress Gutenberg uses React.

[snorremd]

I even suspect Automattic's initial choice to not use React because of the open source license + patents clause was a direct catalyst for Facebook to change the React license, thereby allowing Automattic to use React. Wordpress drives a substantial percentage of the world's websites, so it was probably in Facebook's interest that React was used in project Gutenberg.