Live data from Hacker News

Apache Foundation disallows use of the Facebook “BSD+Patent” license

issues.apache.org

31–40 of 391 posts

Re: Apache Foundation disallows use of the Facebook “BSD+Patent” license

#31
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering almost every single large tech company is using React, presumably there's not much reason for concern? IANAL. But you're not wrong, preact is a great alternative to react and it comes with a permissive license.

> Considering almost every single large tech company is using React React isn't as popular in the real world as it is on HN.

Well, I guess it depends on what you mean 'almost every single large tech company', but React is used by Facebook (of course), Apple, Twitter, Yahoo, Netflix, Amazon, just to name a few.

Re: Apache Foundation disallows use of the Facebook “BSD+Patent” license

#32
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering almost every single large tech company is using React, presumably there's not much reason for concern? IANAL. But you're not wrong, preact is a great alternative to react and it comes with a permissive license.

> Considering almost every single large tech company is using React React isn't as popular in the real world as it is on HN.

Well, anecdotally speaking of course, my company does work for most of the major (a) banks, (b) telcos and (c) insurance companies in Canada, and the majority of them are moving from Angular 1.x to React (because Angular 4 is a mess) for their front-end work, both on the public and secure side of things.

Hopefully they've all done their due diligence..

Re: Apache Foundation disallows use of the Facebook “BSD+Patent” license

#33
post #26

I was wondering about a similar issue for zstd compression library. It has a similar BSD+Patentsfile thing. There is an issue with a related discussion about it going for more than a year: https://github.com/facebook/zstd/issues/335 Last update is interesting. Someone did a search and looked for any patents FB filed for and couldn't find any in last year. So somehow based on that they decided things are "OK". To quot…

IANAL but I have a couple of software patents (now assigned to Open Invention Network).

The line "A year has passed, but searching patents with 'facebook compression' suggests no patent application regarding ZSTD has been filled" is not very convincing to me for a few reasons, primarily that the word "compression" may not show up at all in the patent document. When I got the text of the patent application back from the lawyers, after describing to them in engineering terms the thing we'd invented, I could hardly understand what it was talking about. Patentese is its own dialect of English, and there's no reason to assume that it'll say in straightforward terms that it's a compression algorithm.

Re: Apache Foundation disallows use of the Facebook “BSD+Patent” license

#34

As the other comments say, RocksDB is going to be dual licensed both GPLv2 and Apache. What's the advantage to doing so? If I choose to consume the library via the Apache license, I'd never have to contribute back code; doesn't this invalidate the copyleft of GPLv2?

The copyright owner gets to decide how to license their stuff.

So my guess, is Apache and GPLv2 together makes sense if author wants to give the user the maximum choice in combining the library with other software. That because depending which lawyers you ask Apache and GPL are not always compatible.

So say your code is Apache and you want to use RocksDB, you can pick to use the Apache license for it. Your code is GPL, then you can pick GPL.

Re: Apache Foundation disallows use of the Facebook “BSD+Patent” license

#35
post #18

Finally, people are beginning to realize the insanity of this entire PATENTS file situation! When I first brought up how misguided people were for embracing React and projects with this license, I was downvoted to hell on HN. But really, everyone, THINK ABOUT IT. This is a company that glorifies and celebrates IP theft from others, and lionizes their employees who successfully clone others’ projects. They’ve built th…

Yep, the patent grant is not fully reciprocal. As I understand it:

To use React, you give Facebook permission to use any of your software patents (edit: all patents, even on a new jet engine) throughout your whole company. Facebook gives you permission to use only the software patents necessary for React.

If your company sues Facebook over an unrelated software patent (edit: as above, any patent), your React license (to the React patents) is pulled and if your business has any dependency on React that part of your business is broken until you can port to something else, or you are in license violation if you keep using it.

On the other hand, if Facebook sues you over a software patent (edit: any patent) that isn't related to React, they are still free to do so (edit: you become free to defensively sue with other patents in response and not lose your license to React patents, meaning with the nuclear analogy below you give Facebook "first strike" capabilities but are allowed to keep a retaliatory-only arsenal).

So there is a big asymmetry: all of your software patents for a few of ours. (edit: all of your patents for a few react software patents)

It's a nuclear arms reduction agreement where Facebook gives up 1% of nukes in exchange for co-signers giving up 100%.

(edit: as pointed out below, it is a much worse deal: you give up all patents on everything, not just software patents; Facebook only gives up software patents on React)

Re: Apache Foundation disallows use of the Facebook “BSD+Patent” license

#37
INAL - But this seems strange to me. The Apache license has what I see as being the same patent grant, with the same condition that if you make a claim against them, you lose the patent grant.

Apache 2.0

> 3. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work, where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable by such Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their Contribution(s) with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted. If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.

The important bit being...

> If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.

But what people seem to be missing (as far as I can tell) is that you don't lose the licence to use the software. You just lose the patent grants. But with the BSD licence alone, you lose both the patent grand AND the licence. I really don't see how the Apache 2.0 License and Facebook's BSD+Patent Grant are any different.

Re: Apache Foundation disallows use of the Facebook “BSD+Patent” license

#38
post #4

I really have no idea why react is so popular with such a silly license. I agree with this move. There are plenty of OSS projects out there without patent thing attached to its license so no reason to use react.

Considering almost every single large tech company is using React, presumably there's not much reason for concern? IANAL. But you're not wrong, preact is a great alternative to react and it comes with a permissive license.

"Considering almost every single large tech company is using React, presumably there's not much reason for concern? IANAL. "

Actually, React is banned at a number of them, and i've personally discussed the issue with a number of fairly concerned counsel.

So for better or for worse, i don't believe this is as simple as you make it out to be.

Re: Apache Foundation disallows use of the Facebook “BSD+Patent” license

#39
post #10

RocksDB has fixed this https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/commit/3c327ac2d0fd50bbd... now and moved to Apache / GPL dual license.

they should fix it the same way in react and react-native repos (delete the PATENTS file).

Re: Apache Foundation disallows use of the Facebook “BSD+Patent” license

#40
post #4

I really have no idea why react is so popular with such a silly license. I agree with this move. There are plenty of OSS projects out there without patent thing attached to its license so no reason to use react.

Considering almost every single large tech company is using React, presumably there's not much reason for concern? IANAL. But you're not wrong, preact is a great alternative to react and it comes with a permissive license.

Preact is not an alternative I'd reccomend. It's riddled with very serious bugs. I've found it incredibly difficult to work with.
Post reply on HN