Explaining React's license
code.facebook.com
Explaining React's license
1–10 of 622 posts
Re: Explaining React's license
#2Hmm... "You don't like it? Go jump in a lake." Is that really an explanation?
Re: Explaining React's license
#3Hmm... "You don't like it? Go jump in a lake." Is that really an explanation?
Well generally React users seem to not care. So I don't blame FB. I guess the clause could be rewritten to be more like what Google/Apache 2.0 does - then everyone would be happy.
Re: Explaining React's license
#4This is in reply to the Apache Software Foundation decision to list the BSD + Patents license as a Category-X license.
- Facebook gets attacked by meritless patent litigation
- Facebook creates the BSD + Patents license, which has the following effect :
> The patent grant says that if you're going to use the software we've released under it, you lose the patent license from us if you sue us for patent infringement.
- Facebook believe that 'if this license were widely adopted, it could actually reduce meritless litigation for all adopters'
I understand Facebook's position here, surely this will decrease meritless litigation, but what about meritful litigation?
Let's take an example, a small startup has a cool technology but also all their front-end is using React. That cool technology is patented.
Now if 'Facebook or any of its subsidiaries or corporate affiliates' infringe on that patent, that startup won't be able to sue them without first re-writing the entire front-end to not use React.
I don't think software should be patent-able in the first place anyways but it seems the situation above would still be true if that startup sues them for what they believe is a completely legitimate hardware patent.
Also, IANAL, I'm wondering what even is the definition of a 'corporate affiliate' here? Who is a 'corporate affiliate' of FB?
Finally, what 'patent license' are they referring to in this post anyways ? The react's PATENT clause (https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/b8ba8c83f318b84e42933...) says they're providing the React software License, and they revoke this software license if you sue them.
Re: Explaining React's license
#5> We've been looking for ways around this and have reached out to ASF to see if we could try to work with them, but have come up empty.
This, to me, is a significant warning sign.
I was leery of the React license to begin with. But the community at large had _almost_ convinced me that it was nothing to worry about.
Unfortunately, Facebook's position as stated here is clearly that the license is weaponized for a reason. I think it's irresponsible to leverage software with this license without clear guidance from legal and corporate overlords stating that it's OK.
Re: Explaining React's license
#6This is in reply to the Apache Software Foundation decision to list the BSD + Patents license as a Category-X license. - Facebook gets attacked by meritless patent litigation - Facebook creates the BSD + Patents license, which has the following effect : > The patent grant says that if you're going to use the software we've released under it, you lose the patent license from us if you sue us for patent infringement. -…
> without first re-writing the entire front-end to not use React
Do note this isn't necessarily the case, because nobody has yet found a patent that covers React.
Re: Explaining React's license
#7People used to say that the GPL was illegal, unacceptable, immoral, and all sorts of other things. Then, gradually, everyone started using it, and copyleft became an acceptable software licensing strategy. I hope that BSD + Patents also achieves gradual acceptability.
Re: Explaining React's license
#8People used to say that the GPL was illegal, unacceptable, immoral, and all sorts of other things. Then, gradually, everyone started using it, and copyleft became an acceptable software licensing strategy. I hope that BSD + Patents also achieves gradual acceptability.
People started using the GPL because it works fine for software that isn't distributed to consumers, e.g. on servers. Those uses have subverted the entire intent of he license, however.
Re: Explaining React's license
#9This is a defensive answer. Facebook doesn't even enumerate the React related patents, so you're left guessing about that. At the very least, they should maintain and up to date list of patents granted. What do they have to hide?
Re: Explaining React's license
#10This is in reply to the Apache Software Foundation decision to list the BSD + Patents license as a Category-X license. - Facebook gets attacked by meritless patent litigation - Facebook creates the BSD + Patents license, which has the following effect : > The patent grant says that if you're going to use the software we've released under it, you lose the patent license from us if you sue us for patent infringement. -…
> without first re-writing the entire front-end to not use React Do note this isn't necessarily the case, because nobody has yet found a patent that covers React.
Doesn't that only help if we have a react clone to drop in place? That's not necessarily hard to do without patents, but does it exist?
Edit: I think I see what you are saying. It says you lose the patent license, not necessarily the license for the software that doesn't have a patent, so doesn't do anything. Not sure how a judge would decide to interpret it though.