IMHO, Typescript exists and is of similar quality, far higher community mindshare, and moving from TS ->ES6 is much more easier (in an emergency).
If you write in Reason, the ultimate risk is if you think you will ever be acquired by Google, Microsoft, etc
And it shows, because it has become quite unresponsive versus the previous Java/Objective-C/C++ version.
Now I always postpone my Skype conversations to a PC near me.
Now, people will still use React - because its javascript and at the end of the day, you can rewrite your web stack faster.
Imagine if you have a React Native app already distributed, a Caffe2 ai pipeline in production... or if your logic is in Bucklescript. Much harder to move away if your acquiring company is in a dispute.
...if Facebook has any patents. Which, in this case, it seems very likely they do not.
Incorrect. Your license to their patents gets revoked. Hence why the React license "issue" is basically a paper tiger. (See, eg, https://medium.com/@dwalsh.sdlr/react-facebook-and-the-revok...)
That's not my reading. From the patent grant:
> Facebook ... grants to each recipient of the Software ... license under any Necessary Claims, to make, have made, use, sell, offer to sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Software.
This doesn't say that they're granting you a license to their patents, just their software. In fact, about patents they go beyond to say:
> ... no license is granted under Facebook’s rights in any patent claims that are infringed by (i) modifications to the Software made by you or any third party or (ii) the Software in combination with any software or other technology.
IMO that's pretty clearly saying you don't actually have any license to their patents. Regarding the termination clause:
> The license granted hereunder will terminate....
It seems pretty clear the only license granted hereunder is the one to use the software; in other words if you sue FB for patent infringement you lose the right to use React/Reason.
Literally every lawyer who has looked at that license agrees that your interpretation is wrong.
Also, licenses like this have standard language; if you're even slightly familiar with how such language is interpreted, you'd realise that this represents two independent licenses to two different things, which terminate in different cases.
Also, Facebook has publically explained what the language means to them, and yes, that would be legally binding on them.
Plus:
> IMO that's pretty clearly saying you don't actually have any license to their patents.
Right, a document titled "additional grant of patent rights" that "grants to each recipient of the Software [...] a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, irrevocable (subject to the termination provision below) license under any [claim of a patent owned by Facebook that is necessarily infringed by the Software standing alone], isn't a grant of patent rights?
I'm sorry, but literally everything you've said is wrong. I highly suggest you read the analysis of an actual lawyer, such as the one I linked in the comment you're replying to, because you appear to have no clue what you're talking about.
> Does termination of the additional patent grant in the Facebook BSD+Patents license cause the copyright license to also terminate?
> No.
People lie. It happens. Facebook is not exactly the most noble company in the world.
I also find it interesting that Microsoft is still maintaining React-related projects, despite the license issues.
People were compiling OCaml to Javascript long before it was fashionable. js_of_ocaml is 7 years old and the project that comes from is older still.
Very narrow and specific implementation details might be patented but compiler technology itself is as old as the hills.
Remember that copyright and patent law are separate things. If there are no actual patents, then Facebook's BSD + Patents grant just becomes a normal BSD license.