Explaining React's license • Hacker News Board

Re: Explaining React's license

#51

Post by brianmurphy » Sat, Aug 19, 2017, 1:57 AM UTC

thesausageking wrote: post #17

> Their decision was not a legal decision about the compatibility of projects with this license. As has always been the case, source code licensed under the Facebook BSD + Patents license can be combined with source code licensed under other open source licenses like BSD, MIT, Apache 2.0, and GPL. What complete, tone deaf newspeak. If a BSD-licensed project uses code with a Facebook BSD license, the project is now Fa…

Not tone deaf at all. The BSD license explicitly permits reuse in differently licensed software.

This is the ultimate disagreement of what software freedom means. GPL people think derivatives of their software should remain free. (the viral nature of GPL) Strong BSD proponents believe the freedom to incorporate the software into non-BSD projects (including closed software) is the ultimate freedom.

It sounds like you are more in the copyleft/GPL camp if you are concerned with derivative works remaining compatible with the original license.

Re: Explaining React's license

#52

Post by joobus » Sat, Aug 19, 2017, 1:58 AM UTC

The Facebook patents license, https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/PATENTS , says:

> 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: ... (ii) against any party if such Patent Assertion arises in whole or in part from any software, technology, product or service of Facebook or any of its subsidiaries or corporate affiliates,

I always thought the main problem was this part, where you basically lose the license or your IP if Facebook ever decides to become your competitor, e.g. you start a company with a react front-end that does X, and then Facebook decides to directly copy your business. You have no recourse against Facebook, because if you sue them for infringing your IP, you lose the ability to use the React license.

Re: Explaining React's license

#53

Post by gstein67 » Sat, Aug 19, 2017, 1:59 AM UTC

tarr11 wrote: post #31

I wonder how much BSD + patents actually diminishes lawsuits for Facebook. Is React that widespread? What happens if you stop using React, and replace it with a clone like Preact? I also wonder if this will hold up in court, or is purely a defensive measure.

Just say one, for discussion purposes. One is likely worth the (minimal?) loss of Goodwill/combinatorics/bundling with their licensing choice.

Re: Explaining React's license

#54

Post by gstein67 » Sat, Aug 19, 2017, 2:00 AM UTC

danjoc wrote: post #9

This 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?

With patents, it is usually best to not show your hand. Patent holders never publish the list of patents that read on their software.

Re: Explaining React's license

#55

Post by rhizome » Sat, Aug 19, 2017, 2:01 AM UTC

thesausageking wrote: post #17

> Their decision was not a legal decision about the compatibility of projects with this license. As has always been the case, source code licensed under the Facebook BSD + Patents license can be combined with source code licensed under other open source licenses like BSD, MIT, Apache 2.0, and GPL. What complete, tone deaf newspeak. If a BSD-licensed project uses code with a Facebook BSD license, the project is now Fa…

The way I read it, ASF denied FB's BSD+Patents license in a mysterious bureaucratic decision that will cause a lot of pain for companies that use React, while FB's decision to create the BSD+Patents license was an altruistic move designed to benefit the software ecosystem and reduce their patent litigation overhead.

I believe FB is at the "pounding on the table" stage.

Re: Explaining React's license

#56

Post by molecule » Sat, Aug 19, 2017, 2:01 AM UTC

Discussion of this topic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15050705

Re: Explaining React's license

#57

Post by gstein67 » Sat, Aug 19, 2017, 2:02 AM UTC

pdfernhout wrote: post #19

Facebook claims BSD+PATENTS is GPL compatible. I'd like to hear what the FSF has to say about that.

The two copyright-based licenses are compatible, based on pretty much every legal opinion published.

Facebook is offering a separate patent license, and that is out-of-scope of the GPL.

Re: Explaining React's license

#58

Post by pdfernhout » Sat, Aug 19, 2017, 2:02 AM UTC

ergo14 wrote: post #3

russellbeattie wrote: post #2

Hmm... "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.

React was originally under the Apache2 license. So is this a bit of a bait-and-switch? https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/75897c2dcd1dd3a6ca462...

Also, could that original patent grant in the original license apply to later versions of React?

Re: Explaining React's license

#59

Post by rhizome » Sat, Aug 19, 2017, 2:03 AM UTC

tarr11 wrote: post #31

I wonder how much BSD + patents actually diminishes lawsuits for Facebook. Is React that widespread? What happens if you stop using React, and replace it with a clone like Preact? I also wonder if this will hold up in court, or is purely a defensive measure.

If it succeeds as FUD, they'll never have to defend it.

Re: Explaining React's license

#60

Post by jwingy » Sat, Aug 19, 2017, 2:05 AM UTC

I wonder how Facebook would feel if all the open source software they currently use incorporated the same license. I bet it would deter them from enjoying much of the code they built their business on. This stance seems pretty antithetical to the goal and spirit of open source software and I really hope it's not the beginning of other companies following suit and 'poisoning' the well.