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

181–190 of 203 posts

Re: Facebook React.js License

#181

Post by madeofpalk »

erichocean wrote: post #173
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.

What's the 'bad faith' here? That React is a part of a conspiracy to get all their competitors to use and and then engage in some massive patent lawsuit against them all?

Re: Facebook React.js License

#182

Post by erichocean »

madeofpalk wrote: post #181
erichocean wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

What's the 'bad faith' here? That React is a part of a conspiracy to get all their competitors to use and and then engage in some massive patent lawsuit against them all?

Apache 2 (the original React license, BTW) encompasses all of the legal protections and goals Facebook admits to publicly.

The current BSD license plus "additional patent grant", however, grants Facebook additional rights beyond the Apache 2 license that they refuse to admit to in their public communications, including this idiotic "FAQ". That's the "bad faith": Facebook won't publicly own up to why they want a worldwide, royalty free right to use a third-party's patents that have nothing to do with the software Facebook is licensing to them.

They don't own up publicly because it's unethical.

Re: Facebook React.js License

#183

Post by erichocean »

stefano wrote: post #91
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

That FAQ is missing the most important question, which is raised by the article, on whether the license will terminate if you sue (not counter-sue) facebook for patent infringement unrelated to React. That is, does using React give facebook the right to infringe on any of my patents?

> Does using React give Facebook the right to infringe on any of my patents?

Yes, which is why Facebook's lawyers refuse to answer that question directly and instead obfuscate things by talking about "retaliation".

The Apache 2 license covers, in full, every public goal Facebook legal has stated they have and is 100% ethical. That Facebook refuses to use the Apache 2 license indicates they have additional, private, goals they do not want to own up to publicly.

Re: Facebook React.js License

#184

Post by kodablah »

madeofpalk wrote: post #181
erichocean wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

What's the 'bad faith' here? That React is a part of a conspiracy to get all their competitors to use and and then engage in some massive patent lawsuit against them all?

That they won't address the real question everyone is asking, and at this point, staying mum appears intentional and flippant to those asking. All while acting as though they address people's concerns.

Re: Facebook React.js License

#185

Post by longsangstan »

grumblestumble wrote: post #175
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.

Concept cannot be protected anyway. Look at instagram stealing snapchat stories.

Re: Facebook React.js License

#186

Post by giancarlostoro »

I'm not sure why they didn't just use the MS-PL it sounds like the same thing? I don't understand why use BSD if the MS-PL achieves what they want, and is backed by Microsoft (surely it would be in their best interest to defend their own license).

https://opensource.org/licenses/MS-PL

Re: Facebook React.js License

#187

Post by nashashmi »

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…

It also means that you can infringe on all Facebook patents and instigate them into suing you. Then, because they are the instigator, you can sue them based on your patent portfolio. And not lose your license for using react.

Re: Facebook React.js License

#188

Post by maxsavin »

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…

To your point:

'The initial public release of React in May 2013 used a standard Apache License 2.0. In October 2014, React 0.12.0 replaced this with a 3-clause BSD license and added a separate PATENTS text file that permits usage of any Facebook patents related to the software.'

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/React_(JavaScript_library)

Re: Facebook React.js License

#190

Post by nutate »

"It is unknown to me why Facebook issued an Additional Grant of Patent Rights in the first place."

STOP RIGHT THERE

If you can't be bothered to do the research necessary to see why then your JD didn't teach ya much in the ways of learning about things. Which ideally should be a large portion, those big books of case law, now oft replaced with speculation and internet comments, do at least tell the story of "why". And if you jump the gun on researching the imminently googleable first sentence of your argument, how can I trust, nay, why should I trust, a single sentence thereafter.

Long and short APL has patent clauses, BSD doesn't, their PATENTS file kinda added that back to BSD without some of the apparent downsides of the APL in terms of forcing you to never ever sue about patents.

Small but not hard, I know, I just have a PhD not some fancy JD, but at least I can do the research that would've muted I imagine the entire post.

I still can't seem to write non-confusing sentences though. Oh well. Parse the above at your own peril.

Post reply on HN