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

171–180 of 203 posts

Re: Facebook React.js License

#171

Post by gcp »

DannyBee wrote: post #160
happytrails wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey Paul, why not get rid of all the legalese and make this bird free? "Do what you want, no warranty"

The same reason Google has BSD + additional rights grants (though not as restrictive): We deliberately want people to not be able to sue us for patent infringement without us being able to defend ourselves. One can argue that facebook's method may be harsher than necessary (our rights grant is pretty much a copy of apache's 2), but i think people do not realize how often google/facebook/etc is getting sued for patent…

though not as restrictive

This is critical though. Nobody is complaining about the Google (which is also used by Microsoft and Mozilla) retaliation clauses.

i think people do not realize how often google is getting sued for patent infringement.

Fair enough. If Facebook wants to make a public commitment to not use First Strike, the patent license would be acceptable. They have not, so it isn't.

Re: Facebook React.js License

#172

Post by erichocean »

lucb1e wrote: post #62

The way I read it, it's not evil. It's a known and deliberate shortcoming of many licenses (e.g. BSD) not to include patent stuff because it makes everything unnecessarily complex. There was recently an article about why BSD and MIT are so popular, and it's because they're concise and understandable. There is a reason WTFPL exists and some developers resort to it as a way to avoid legalese. Facebook clearly was aware…

> The way I read it, it's not evil.

No, it's evil, full stop.

Facebook's patent policy means, in no uncertain terms: if you have a patent, they have a worldwide, royalty-free right to use it. Don't want to give them that? Well, until you remove all usage of Facebook's "open source" code, that's the situation.

Note: RocksDB also has this problem, which means CockroachDB is also infected. Tread carefully.

-----

Note to downvoters: No one has a problem with Apache 2-style patent-retaliation provisions. Facebook could solve this problem TODAY by switching to that.

They don't because they don't want to retaliate, they want access to unrelated patents from third-parties at zero cost, with a credible threat to damage those third-parties if they want to retain their unrelated patent rights. There's literally no other reason for Facebook to demand terms beyond Apache 2 than to do what I just described.

The Apache 2 license protects Facebook and third-parties and is 100% ethical. Facebook's patent position is not, for the reasons I've stated above. The community, IMO, should shun Facebook LOUDLY until they relent and stop this bullshit.

-----

Update 2: It's actually worse, because Facebook tends to do this bullshit on stuff like RocksDB and React which are incorporated in other software that you use to run your business.

Using a React-based dashboard widget for your ElasticSearch cluster? Good luck suing Facebook for patent-infringement, because guess what? You agreed to let them infringe by using it, even though you didn't intend to.

Facebook's patent policy requires constant policing to avoid. Like I said: EVIL.

Re: Facebook React.js License

#173

Post by erichocean »

zpao wrote: post #75

Hi, Paul from the React team here. There have been lots of questions about the license+patents combo we use. Recently our legal team answered some of those questions. https://code.facebook.com/license-faq

> Recently our legal team answered some of those questions.

Except, you know, the one that matters.

If that doesn't prove that Facebook is acting in bad faith, I don't know what could convince you.

Re: Facebook React.js License

#175

Post by grumblestumble »

zpao wrote: post #75

Hi, Paul from the React team here. There have been lots of questions about the license+patents combo we use. Recently our legal team answered some of those questions. https://code.facebook.com/license-faq

Hi Paul, why not address the real issue in the FAQ? As it stands now, using React in a project essentially nullifies any patent protections a company may have against Facebook. If I were to use React to build a successful product that fits into Facebook's business plan, there is nothing I could do to prevent them from stealing my concept wholesale.

Re: Facebook React.js License

#176

Post by eitland »

matt4077 wrote: post #99
Egidius wrote: post #55

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.

Being "serious about Open Source" doesn't mean a commitment to do anything to support people using your software. It's the opposite, actually: the original copyleft licenses such as the GPL were explicitly designed to promote Open Source by hindering adoption in some cases, namely those where companies want to distribute derivative works commercially. Then the BSD/MIT-style licenses weakened this restriction. So you'…

> It's the opposite, actually: the original copyleft licenses such as the GPL were explicitly designed to promote Open Source by hindering adoption in some cases, namely those where companies want to distribute derivative works commercially.

I'm usually not the one to defend GPL but I want to point out that AFAIK distributing derivative works commercially is totally fine for GPL - you just have to follow the rules in the license (provide source code under the same licence).

Re: Facebook React.js License

#177

Post by ignasl »

erichocean wrote: post #172
lucb1e wrote: post #62

The way I read it, it's not evil. It's a known and deliberate shortcoming of many licenses (e.g. BSD) not to include patent stuff because it makes everything unnecessarily complex. There was recently an article about why BSD and MIT are so popular, and it's because they're concise and understandable. There is a reason WTFPL exists and some developers resort to it as a way to avoid legalese. Facebook clearly was aware…

> The way I read it, it's not evil. No, it's evil, full stop. Facebook's patent policy means, in no uncertain terms: if you have a patent, they have a worldwide, royalty-free right to use it. Don't want to give them that? Well, until you remove all usage of Facebook's "open source" code, that's the situation. Note: RocksDB also has this problem, which means CockroachDB is also infected. Tread carefully. ----- Note to…

> Good luck suing Facebook for patent-infringement

Protecting from patent lawsuits is not evil as SW patents are bullish anyway. No one except maybe some patent trolls or some other big companies will sue Facebook for patent infrigment and if they do then this is a pretty clever defence. If you really really have something really really unique invented (which is really really unlikely) then just don't use anything by Facebook.

Re: Facebook React.js License

#178

Post by yladiz »

One interesting thing to note is that the actual license makes no specific references to the patents rider, and in fact the patents grant rider is a separate file completely. Does that mean that I have to follow it, if it's not directly in the license? If we look at the license as a contract, shouldn't it be in the license directly, even if it's referencing something outside?

Re: Facebook React.js License

#179

Post by erichocean »

ignasl wrote: post #177
erichocean wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The way I read it, it's not evil. No, it's evil, full stop. Facebook's patent policy means, in no uncertain terms: if you have a patent, they have a worldwide, royalty-free right to use it. Don't want to give them that? Well, until you remove all usage of Facebook's "open source" code, that's the situation. Note: RocksDB also has this problem, which means CockroachDB is also infected. Tread carefully. ----- Note to…

> Good luck suing Facebook for patent-infringement Protecting from patent lawsuits is not evil as SW patents are bullish anyway. No one except maybe some patent trolls or some other big companies will sue Facebook for patent infrigment and if they do then this is a pretty clever defence. If you really really have something really really unique invented (which is really really unlikely) then just don't use anything by…

> Protecting from patent lawsuits is not evil as SW patents

Facebook makes hardware and runs a business, and their "we get all your patents for free" stance applies to all patents, not just software patents.

Re: Facebook React.js License

#180

Post by madeofpalk »

gcp wrote: post #51
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 ha…

2) If Microsoft published React without a patent rider, and Microsoft had patents on the tech in React, then you would be in violation in the first place, right? Microsoft can still you sue for violating their React patents, especially if you sue them first.
Post reply on HN