2 minutes in a 5 minute animation short are the credits.
Here's a 2:18 animation with 1:06 credits -- way more than the ratio I gave: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZRLlyxvr6E
Credits --crew members, voice talent, sponsors, thanks, etc-- can rise almost linearly with the length of an animation, and even more so with increases in its production value.
A 5 minute short can have almost the same team size as a feature animation (which requires > 2 minute credits). The fact that they'll be employed for shorter time doesn't mean they don't get their names on the credits.
I sure am glad to know about the patent considerations in this simple criticism in this JavaScript, as I've decided not to use React because of them.
> Then why don't you drink this glass of 70% orange juice and 30% motor oil, since by your definition it's "simply orange juice".
I think a more proper correlation of your analogy vs OP's argument would be if you held it up and claims "why I won't be putting this motor oil into my car" and OP pointed out "that's because it contains mostly orange juice." Its intended to be an article about the con's of React Native, but is mostly an article about the cons of Javascript. Its a very well written article and (imho) its best parts are the concerns of long-term development of an entirely distinct ecosystem.
It's purely a misconception in the same way that 30% motor oil is pure orange juice -- which is to say, it's not a misconception, by my reading. I wonder what my IP laywer would say about it, will post if I decide to ask.
Unless I am looking at the wrong comment, @pluma's explanation is just that it's not a problem as long as you don't sue Facebook. But this is equivalent to saying that as long as you give up your only recourse in the event FB violates your IP, you'll be fine. To me it seems like a mentality that makes sense primarily if a person doesn't ever expect to do anything worth patenting, or doesn't ever plan on patenting for some other reason. Don't sell yourself short.
