Content deleted Content added
Add the Facebook response to the patent controversy |
|||
Line 73:
This unconventional clause caused some controversy and debate in the React user community, because it may be interpreted to empower Facebook to revoke the license in many scenarios, for example if Facebook sues the licensee prompting them to take "other action" by publishing the action on a blog or elsewhere. Many expressed concerns that Facebook could unfairly exploit the termination clause or that integrating React into a product might complicate a startup company's future acquisition.<ref>{{cite web|title=A compelling reason not to use ReactJS|first=Austin|last=Liu|url=https://medium.com/bits-and-pixels/a-compelling-reason-not-to-use-reactjs-beac24402f7b|website=Medium}}</ref> At the time, Google reportedly forbade its employees from using any code under this license.<ref>{{cite web|first=Zellyn|last=Hunter|title=Hacker News: React Native is now open source|url=https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9271246|website=Y Combinator|access-date=9 December 2015}}</ref>.
Based on community feedback, Facebook updated the patent grant in April 2015 to be less ambiguous and more permissive.<ref>{{cite web|title=Updating Our Open Source Patent Grant|url=https://code.facebook.com/posts/1639473982937255/updating-our-open-source-patent-grant/}}</ref>
==References==
| |||