In reply to Mattias Johansson.

Vue has the MIT license w/o Patent grant, which is doesn’t grant any patents whatsoever.

In other words you are saying that OSS licenses with a patent clause are better than those without, implying that we're all better off adopting licenses with patents clauses that in the case of React was written with the explicit intent to defend the interest of a single corporation.

99.999999% of sites using and choosing WordPress will never have to deal will issues with patent trolls. We don't need licenses with a non-standard special clauses defending the interests of a corporation. Rejecting that doesn't mean we are only consistent if we then pick a tool with say, apache 2.0, that would imply we feel it is necessary to have a patent clause packaged with our software. WP ships with GPL and we've done fine without complicating matters by introducing non-standard licenses into the mix.

For me and I suspect plenty of others the license was a blocker not because of fear of malevolence on FB's part (although that can't be entirely ruled out either), but about why and who put it there and what is symbolizes: a corporate with goals contrary to those who value an open web who by necessity have worded a non-standard patents clause that uniquely defends their corporate interests. The OSS licenses compatible with WP don't have *any* wording to protect the interests of any particular business, nor should they and nor should we want other OSS projects powered by large companies to start injecting their own non-standard legalese. Nor is there any overwhelming reason to adopt a software that includes a patent grant in the first place in the space that WP operates in. There certainly was no good reason to pick a tool that has a non-standard clause when there are many solid alternatives available.

So, I disagree strongly with you, licensing was one hell of a good reason not to go with React.