This is the major drawback of adoption for Zstandard, too.
Apache Foundation disallows use of the Facebook “BSD+Patent” license
71–80 of 391 posts
Re: Apache Foundation disallows use of the Facebook “BSD+Patent” license
#72Earlier 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, 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.
Off the top of my head big users of React include:
* Apple (their entire dev docs site is built in it, and they've hosted Bay Area React user meet-ups)
* Twitter (for their mobile web)
* Microsoft (parts of Visual Studio use it)
* Netflix (all over their frontend stack)
...as well as Dropbox, AirBnb, Venmo...
So whilst I don't doubt you've discussed it with concerned counsel, there are huge corporations deploying React today, many of whom have extensive experience dealing with patent and IP issues (Apple, Microsoft, etc).
Re: Apache Foundation disallows use of the Facebook “BSD+Patent” license
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 use React, you give Facebook permission to use any of your software patents throughout your whole company. Facebook gives you permission to use only the software patents necessary for React. W̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶p̶l̶e̶a̶s̶e̶ ̶q̶u̶o̶t̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶e̶x̶a̶c̶t̶ ̶t̶e̶x̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶g̶i̶v̶e̶s̶ ̶F̶a̶c̶e̶b̶o̶o̶k̶ ̶a̶n̶y̶ ̶r̶i̶g̶h̶t̶s̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶u̶s̶e̶r̶'̶s̶ ̶p̶a̶t̶e̶n̶t̶s̶.̶ ̶A̶s̶ ̶f̶a̶r̶ ̶a̶s̶ ̶I̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶ ̶s̶e̶e̶ ̶o̶n̶l̶y̶…
> You lose the patent rights if you sue Facebook for any patents that involve React
I see nothing that limits the termination clause to patents involving React. The only limitation following those general lines is the one you quoted, which is a limitation on the exception, implying that the license does terminate if the patent over which Facebook sued you is a React patent.
Re: Apache Foundation disallows use of the Facebook “BSD+Patent” license
#74As 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?
[deleted]
Re: Apache Foundation disallows use of the Facebook “BSD+Patent” license
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
you have only named a few though; 'almost every single large tech company' requires a particular definition of large tech company or a lot more than a few to be a useful(ly true) statement
Take a look here:
https://github.com/facebook/react/wiki/sites-using-react
...that's obviously not complete, either. If you think of a large tech company the odds are they are using react somewhere for something, be it public facing or internal tooling. Many of the companies that aren't actively using React do so because they have their own JS stacks to dogfood (like Google and Angular).
Re: Apache Foundation disallows use of the Facebook “BSD+Patent” license
#76Finally, 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…
Important: IANAL and I am commenting from my personal reading
In the case of Fuschia, I don't see any more restriction of end-user rights than Apache 2.0 would give you. The only real difference is this line:
> This grant does not include claims that would be infringed only as a consequence of further modification of this implementation.
That makes it clear if you make a modification to Fuschia, that infringes on a patent that Google holds, that you don't automatically get rights to that patent too. Apache 2.0 doesn't mention that, but it appears implicit to me as Apache 2.0 only gives you patent rights to whatever is in the source.
Re: Apache Foundation disallows use of the Facebook “BSD+Patent” license
#77Finally, 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…
[deleted]
Re: Apache Foundation disallows use of the Facebook “BSD+Patent” license
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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.
Off the top of my head big users of React include: * Apple (their entire dev docs site is built in it, and they've hosted Bay Area React user meet-ups) * Twitter (for their mobile web) * Microsoft (parts of Visual Studio use it) * Netflix (all over their frontend stack) ...as well as Dropbox, AirBnb, Venmo... So whilst I don't doubt you've discussed it with concerned counsel, there are huge corporations deploying Rea…
To add on to this list, even IBM with their large patent portfolio has a large number of teams deploying projects using React and other FB OSS technology.
Disclaimer: I work for IBM.
Re: Apache Foundation disallows use of the Facebook “BSD+Patent” license
#79Finally, 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…
> This is a company that glorifies and celebrates IP theft from others, and lionizes their employees who successfully clone others’ projects. What are you referring to?
Here's a good example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7tA3NNKF0Q
Re: Apache Foundation disallows use of the Facebook “BSD+Patent” license
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
> To use React, you give Facebook permission to use any of your software patents throughout your whole company. Facebook gives you permission to use only the software patents necessary for React. W̶o̶u̶l̶d̶ ̶y̶o̶u̶ ̶p̶l̶e̶a̶s̶e̶ ̶q̶u̶o̶t̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶e̶x̶a̶c̶t̶ ̶t̶e̶x̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶g̶i̶v̶e̶s̶ ̶F̶a̶c̶e̶b̶o̶o̶k̶ ̶a̶n̶y̶ ̶r̶i̶g̶h̶t̶s̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶u̶s̶e̶r̶'̶s̶ ̶p̶a̶t̶e̶n̶t̶s̶.̶ ̶A̶s̶ ̶f̶a̶r̶ ̶a̶s̶ ̶I̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶ ̶s̶e̶e̶ ̶o̶n̶l̶y̶…
No, you lose the patent rights if you sue Facebook for any patents period. > The license granted hereunder will terminate, automatically and without notice, if you (or any of your subsidiaries, corporate affiliates or agents) initiate directly or indirectly, or take a direct financial interest in, any Patent Assertion: (i) against Facebook or any of its subsidiaries or corporate affiliates If you have to agree not to…
I understand now. I missed the "any Patent" assertion.