News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on React 16. Parent comment

Re:React 16 by danabramov on Tuesday September 26, 2017 @12:54PM (#15340438)
It's possible in the future, but re-licensing React itself was already a very large change, and it will take more time to review the possibility of this for other projects like RN. Thanks for your patience!
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:React 16 by moomin on Tuesday September 26, 2017 @01:11PM (#15340594)
Yeah, pity said large change was implemented before checking if it was a good idea.

Community: This license is a legal nightmare. Something needs doing! Facebook: We have done something. Community: Try listening to both sentences next time.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:React 16 by rhencke on Tuesday September 26, 2017 @01:25PM (#15340744)
The MIT license is extremely commonplace in web libraries and is well accepted. (used by jQuery, Preact, Angular, etc.)

Can you clarify your concerns?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:React 16 by slaymaker1907 on Tuesday September 26, 2017 @01:36PM (#15340856)
I'm not in anyway connected with FB, but I think the reason why React was licensed under MIT more quickly than React Native is because of that licensing environment. Web frameworks traditionally have very open licenses, but native seems more more restricted such as with Qt and the C# thing I don't remember the name of.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:React 16 by bennyg on Tuesday September 26, 2017 @01:50PM (#15340983)
Except the largest 3rd party Objective-C and Java (Android) libraries are usually MIT as well. I don't really think this has to do with traditions as far as per platform licensing goes.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:React 16 by bernadus_edwin on Tuesday September 26, 2017 @02:46PM (#15341468)
C# things : xamarin & mono
[ Parent | on HN ]