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

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

issues.apache.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 391 posts

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

#201

Post by briandear »

khuey wrote: post #70
csdreamer7 wrote: post #69

Earlier 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…

So if I understand correctly, if I were to use React for a marketing website about my patented system for and Facebook steals/uses that extremely valuable invention, I can’t sue Facebook by virtue of using React?

Obviously, if that were to happen, you’d simply have to stop using React or else you’d get countersued for using React without a license right?

Why would anyone use React ever if that’s how it works? It feels like a payday loan – React makes it “easy” right now, but if your business is built dependent on React, you could pay a serious price later in exchange for “right now” convenience. It makes a strong case for Ember or Glimmer or any of the other front-end systems not tied to Facebook. Imagine a React “Native” app around which your business is based – you’d have to rewrite the entire thing of Facebook were to start using some patented aspect of your business.

Perhaps I am misinformed, but it seems absolutely bonkers to essentially indemnify Facebook from patent infringement just by virtue of using React somewhere in your business.

Imagine if Apple did this: if you release on the App Store using Xcode, you can’t sue us for any patent infringement ever or we’ll sue you for using Xcode illegally.

Is my assessment correct? Is React that good to risk such a situation? Facebook could sit back and watch a company using React develop something amazing, then Facebook could steal it and you’d have no recourse but to stop using React. Meanwhile, while you are rebuilding your application, you lose all your customers, but if you don’t rebuild your application, Facebook can legally take your invention and crush you in the market. Either way, you lose – simply because a few developers on the team were insistent on React’s greatness. If I were a VC, I’d be incredibly wary about supporting a company using React for their primary application.

Am I wrong? I am not trying to be argumentative – I just want to be sure I am understanding this correctly.

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

#202

Post by TokenDiversity »

rdtsc wrote: post #28
numair wrote: 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…

> They’ve built their entire business on the back of open source software that wasn’t ever encumbered with the sort of nonsense they’ve attached to their own projects. So did Amazon apparently and others. At least Google have open sourced many interesting and useful projects so they have given back. Microsoft have been open sourcing things lately too. Others so so.

It's called PR and google has mastered that art. I dare them to open source gmail's spam filter. There are so few email solutions right now out there. They are basically a monopoly. They could use some competition.

Feel free to downvote google fanboys :). You're no different from MS fans for 90s

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

#203

Post by vbernat »

dchest wrote: post #179
vbernat wrote: post #118

How did Facebook was able to change the license of RocksDB so easily? The CLA is not a copyright assignment and therefore all contributors have to agree for the change. Did they contact anyone who has signed up the CLA?

All contributors to RocksDB signed Facebook's CLA https://code.facebook.com/cla/individual which states: 2. Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, You hereby grant to Facebook and to recipients of software distributed by Facebook a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly…

This is not a copyright assignment and not an authorization to publish under a different license. Canonical's CLA adds the additional paragraph to enable that:

    Based on the grant of rights in Sections 2.1 and 2.2, if We
    include Your Contribution in a Material, We may license the
    Contribution under any license, including copyleft,
    permissive, commercial, or proprietary licenses. As a
    condition on the exercise of this right, We agree to also
    license the Contribution under the terms of the license or
    licenses which We are using for the Material on the
    Submission Date.

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

#204

Post by LeoNatan25 »

chrisco255 wrote: post #188
BorisEm wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Office uses react already: https://github.com/OfficeDev/office-ui-fabric-react

http://www.reactnative.tools/ React Native at Microsoft

Very limited “use”; mostly just enabling external developers to interface using React to their existing tools (that are not using React). If the Armageddon should come, and Microsoft is to enter a legal patent dispute/battle, stopping this React “use” is a no-op for Microsoft.

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

#205

Post by JepZ »

stale2002 wrote: post #144
matthewmacleod wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, this is not correct. If you sue Facebook for infringing on your patents, then you lose the rights to any patents which Facebook may or may not have on parts of React. Nobody has, to my knowledge, found one of these patents to date.

Then why does that line even exist? Why doesn't facebook just get rid of it entirely?

Probably they just want to keep to door open and when some oracle comes around, their lawyers can make up some connections to patents facebook has then.

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

#206

Post by smarx007 »

vbernat wrote: post #181

Reading a bit more the thread, it's quite surprising. The assignee is Chris Mattmann. From his webpage, he is not a legal counsel. The only evidence of a problem they show is that BSD alone implies a patent grant but coupled with an explicit patent grant, this is not the case anymore. The other evidence is brought by Roy Fielding who does not appear to be a legal counsel either about a discussion (oral?) with Faceboo…

Cheers, Chris Mattmann VP Legal Affairs

WUT?

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

#207

Post by beagle3 »

Nullabillity wrote: post #196
beagle3 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do not have to publish. The USPTO will publish patents (provisional or full) 18 months after filing, so -- at the very least -- one has to wait 18 months. It is also quite possible that facebook collects patents under a different name, e.g. "faceless intellect llc", a wholly owned subsidiary of Facebook. Or they may have bought patents that are essential for ZSTD from someone else who filed them independently. T…

> They do not have to publish. The USPTO will publish patents (provisional or full) 18 months after filing, so -- at the very least -- one has to wait 18 months. Holy shit, what ?! The US patent system means that you can infringe on patents that you had no way to know even existed at that point in time? How the fuck can someone look at this policy and think that it's in any way reasonable?!

They also publish at grant of course. It's just that it rarely takes less than 2 years from filing to grant so first publication by USPTO is usually pre-approval, 18 month from filing

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

#208

Post by vbernat »

smarx007 wrote: post #206
vbernat wrote: post #181

Reading a bit more the thread, it's quite surprising. The assignee is Chris Mattmann. From his webpage, he is not a legal counsel. The only evidence of a problem they show is that BSD alone implies a patent grant but coupled with an explicit patent grant, this is not the case anymore. The other evidence is brought by Roy Fielding who does not appear to be a legal counsel either about a discussion (oral?) with Faceboo…

Cheers, Chris Mattmann VP Legal Affairs WUT?

Damn. My bad.

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

#209

Post by thanksgiving »

cyphar wrote: post #184
captainmuon wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the spirit is that patents are not legitimate. Suing for patent infringement is not considered exercising a legal right, it's considered being a dick and vandalizing someones property. So this is not to be read like a contract between to businesses, but like a truce. It might as well say "we agree to not destroy your business using dirty tricks if you don't attempt the same". Of course, opinions on that are d…

That's how Apache 2.0 and GPLv3 treat patents. The language in the React license is not symmetric like the above licenses and thus doesn't feel like it's a "screw you" to patents. Not to mention that Facebook is very patent-heavy and it doesn't feel like they're anti-patent in any meaningful way.

I'd be more sympathetic to Facebook if they declared they would never use patents to sue someone and they'd only use their patents "defensively". Of course, they'd never do such a thing even though such a statement has zero weight.

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

#210

Post by smarx007 »

khuey wrote: post #123
Lazare wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can't legally use React without a patents license. I'll send you US$50 if you can find ANY evidence this is true in the US, UK, Aus, or Canada. :)

That nobody seems to know whether there are in fact any patents licensed by the patent grant within React is one of the most frustrating things about it.

A quick search on WIPO:

https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=US90... https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=US19...

Query:

    PA:facebook* AND FP:(Hierarchical user interface) AND CTR:US
Post reply on HN