Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Facebook React.js License

elcaminolegal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 203 posts

Re: Facebook React.js License

#51

Post by gcp »

Noseshine wrote: post #48

So I checked StackExchange's law site and found this question - thus far unanswered, but those would be my questions exactly: http://law.stackexchange.com/questions/14337/q-about-consequ... It comes down to two questions (quoted from the linked question) - note that those are questions , not assertions: 1) > ... if we use any of Facebook's open source projects Facebook can violate *our patents* (of any > kind) pretty…

1) Yes, and that's exactly the problem raised here.

2) The patent grants from Microsoft and Google grant a license on software (or a standard), and only give them a (reciprocal) license on the software or standard that is under consideration. If Microsoft had published React, you could still sue them for violating patents that are unrelated to React without losing your license to use it. The Facebook grant doesn't have this, so if you rely on React you can't sue Facebook at all. But they can still sue you.

Re: Facebook React.js License

#52

Post by bad_user »

mi100hael wrote: post #32
zelon88 wrote: post #14

Does this mean that react could be considered "available source" instead of "open source?"

I think it's a great illustration of the difference between "open source" and "free software." In this case the source is still openly published, but under certain circumstances you're no longer free to redistribute.

Personally I think it's a great illustration that even software developers lack reading skills.

Open Source means this, no more, no less: https://opensource.org/osd-annotated

Re: Facebook React.js License

#53

Post by novaleaf »

mjg59 wrote: post #23

Version 2 of the Apple Public Source License includes the following termination clause: 12.1 Termination. This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate: … (c) automatically without notice from Apple if You, at any time during the term of this License, commence an action for patent infringement against Apple; provided that Apple did not first commence an action for patent infringement against You in tha…

easy enough for the determined to circumvent: construct a new legal entity and transfer the ip rights to it. then the new entity files suit.

Re: Facebook React.js License

#54

Post by cjbprime »

gcp wrote: post #49
cjbprime wrote: post #47

The argument that "This is Not Open Source Software" feels unsupported and very sloppy. > Thus, the licensee pays a price to use the library. It is not a price paid with money. [..] I could be missing something, but I have never seen any other software license use such a condition and also claim to be an open source license. This just isn't thinking creatively. The GPL also requires a "price to be paid, but not with…

I think the argument is that the grant is asymmetric. GPL is "I open up, you open up". The retaliation clause Facebook uses is "you don't get to sue us, but we may sue you".

That's an interesting argument! (But the article didn't make it..)

Couldn't you argue that the GPL says "you don't get to keep your changes private, but I do", and so is asymmetric too? It seems normal to me for the rightsholder to retain more rights than the grantee.

Re: Facebook React.js License

#55

Post by Egidius »

I agree. I was working at a somewhat large IT company (~30k employees) this year. I made a plea for React and while our development section agreed, it got bounced by legal because of these points.

If Facebook is really serious about Open Source, they also have to make their licence so that every organisation is free to use it.

Re: Facebook React.js License

#58

Post by RandomBK »

novaleaf wrote: post #53
mjg59 wrote: post #23

Version 2 of the Apple Public Source License includes the following termination clause: 12.1 Termination. This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate: … (c) automatically without notice from Apple if You, at any time during the term of this License, commence an action for patent infringement against Apple; provided that Apple did not first commence an action for patent infringement against You in tha…

easy enough for the determined to circumvent: construct a new legal entity and transfer the ip rights to it. then the new entity files suit.

If there's money behind the case, lawyers will sue anyways, arguing that the IP shell is a related entity whose actions can be reflected upon the parent.

Re: Facebook React.js License

#59

Post by Mc_Big_G »

ojr wrote: post #8
romanovcode wrote: post #2

React.js is basically licensed so that you cannot make anything that can compete with facebook corporation. Example: 1. You create something similar to Instagram using React. 2. It gets popular 3. Facebook sues you and takes all your reacts and reducers

Actually I see it as 3. You can't sue Facebook because your app is similar to Instagram

Ok, so expanding on that, the problem becomes this:

1) You create a successful app using React

2) Facebook blatantly copies your app.

3) You can't sue Facebook

Re: Facebook React.js License

#60

Post by icebraining »

amelius wrote: post #16
ojr wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually I see it as 3. You can't sue Facebook because your app is similar to Instagram

Is such a clause actually enforceable? Has this been tested in a court of law? Just curious.

Well, the clause isn't "you can't sue", it's "you have to stop using React if you sue".
Post reply on HN