Explaining React's license • Hacker News Board

Re: Explaining React's license

#161

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Aug 19, 2017, 4:26 AM UTC

jnbiche wrote: post #100

Lazare wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Facebook has a patent on React, it's almost certainly going to be on the vdom concept. If Facebook has a patent on the vdom, then all the projects in your list violate the patent, and none of them come with even a conditional patent grant from Facebook. If Facebook does not have a patent on the vdom or other React technology, then those other projects are safe, but so is React , since termination of the patent gra…

You're missing the fact that if you sue Facebook for any patent infringement, even a legitimate one (say, you're the creator of some new hardware), Facebook will revoke your React license. Also, Facebook has no vdom patent. It's not like you can be granted a secret, hidden patent (even the word "patent" itself means "open").

[deleted]

Re: Explaining React's license

#162

Post by cbuq » Sat, Aug 19, 2017, 4:27 AM UTC

carussell wrote: post #79

jwingy wrote: post #60

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.

> how Facebook would feel if all the open source software they currently use incorporated the same license That would work incredibly well to neutralize patents, actually, and would be a huge win for free/open source software. It's surprising not to have seen anyone point out the logical conclusion of a world where every major license includes a React-like stance on patents: it's a world where no one is able to bring…

If mutually assured destruction is your definition of peace...

But what prevents everyone from becoming patent infringers in this scenario?

Re: Explaining React's license

#163

Post by fhrow4484 » Sat, Aug 19, 2017, 4:30 AM UTC

antoncohen wrote: post #129

Facebook's license is no more dangerous than regular MIT or BSD-style licenses. If you are OK with using MIT or BSD licensed software you should be OK with using Facebook's BSD + Patents software. Here is why: MIT and BSD licenses don't have any patent grants, unlike the Apache 2.0 license. If you use MIT/BSD open source software, and some functionality of that software is patented by the author, you could be sued fo…

> Now if you turn around and use the author for patent infringement for something else, you lose the patent grant that came with the software, and you are back to a normal plain old BSD license.

> The BSD + Patents license is strictly better than the regular BSD/MIT licenses. You lose no rights, you may gain some patent protection.

Could you provide a citation backing up your claims?

if you read the patent grant for yourself:

https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/PATENTS

There's no mention of any patent grant coming with the software

>> "The license granted hereunder will terminate"

"The license" here is the one defined as:

>> Facebook, Inc. ("Facebook") hereby grants to each recipient of the Software ("you") a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, irrevocable (subject to the termination provision below) license under any Necessary Claims, to make, have made, use, sell, offer to sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Software

and the "Sofware" here is the one defined as :

>> "Software" means the React software distributed by Facebook, Inc.

Re: Explaining React's license

#164

Post by coderdude » Sat, Aug 19, 2017, 4:31 AM UTC

kevinflo wrote: post #101

I love love love love love react as a technology, but this is just awful. I believe any developer not on Facebook's payroll still contributing to React or React native at this point has a moral obligation to stop. I personally feel like such a fool for not taking all this seriously before the ASF gave me a wakeup call. React is a trojan horse into the open source community that Facebook purposely and maliciously stee…

>React is a trojan horse into the open source community

No, that's stupid and lame. It takes two seconds to reason about the dumb reasoning it would take to figure out the 'vastly in depth' details behind some licensing stuff. Oh, my god!

> We should not have to debate for years if a project's license is radioactive.

Stop using their tech. Go back to Angular or WHATEVER.

Re: Explaining React's license

#165

Post by fhrow4484 » Sat, Aug 19, 2017, 4:33 AM UTC

antoncohen wrote: post #158

mcbits wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've read it, and I'm pretty sure it says that if you initiate a patent lawsuit against Facebook, you lose the license to use React at all. It doesn't revert to BSD. (EDIT: Apparently that's wrong although the license could certainly be more clear about it.) If React doesn't implement any of their patents, the patent clause offers nothing extra. If it does, it would be damned nice to know which one(s) . Do other libr…

No, you lose the patent license, not the copyright license. From Facebook's blog post: > 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. https://code.facebook.com/posts/112130496157735/explaining-r...

Which one has more value? A file included in the repo, written in legalese, on which Every single source code file's copyright headers point to (and the README file as well), or an ambigous blog post?

Reading the file in its current form (https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/b8ba8c83f318b84e42933...), You lose the license to make, have made, use, sell, offer to sell, import, and otherwise transfer the [React] Software.

Re: Explaining React's license

#166

Post by gedy » Sat, Aug 19, 2017, 4:34 AM UTC

freewizard wrote: post #135

kevinflo wrote: post #101

I love love love love love react as a technology, but this is just awful. I believe any developer not on Facebook's payroll still contributing to React or React native at this point has a moral obligation to stop. I personally feel like such a fool for not taking all this seriously before the ASF gave me a wakeup call. React is a trojan horse into the open source community that Facebook purposely and maliciously stee…

Any suggestion on an open source & high quality alternatives for a large existing code base depending on React?

Preact with preact-compat is (almost) a drop-in replacement for existing React code: https://preactjs.com/guide/switching-to-preact

Re: Explaining React's license

#167

Post by mcbits » Sat, Aug 19, 2017, 4:34 AM UTC

antoncohen wrote: post #158

mcbits wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've read it, and I'm pretty sure it says that if you initiate a patent lawsuit against Facebook, you lose the license to use React at all. It doesn't revert to BSD. (EDIT: Apparently that's wrong although the license could certainly be more clear about it.) If React doesn't implement any of their patents, the patent clause offers nothing extra. If it does, it would be damned nice to know which one(s) . Do other libr…

No, you lose the patent license, not the copyright license. From Facebook's blog post: > 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. https://code.facebook.com/posts/112130496157735/explaining-r...

My reading must be off, then. Is "under any Necessary Claims" the magic phrase?

Re: Explaining React's license

#168

Post by jancsika » Sat, Aug 19, 2017, 4:35 AM UTC

antoncohen wrote: post #129

Facebook's license is no more dangerous than regular MIT or BSD-style licenses. If you are OK with using MIT or BSD licensed software you should be OK with using Facebook's BSD + Patents software. Here is why: MIT and BSD licenses don't have any patent grants, unlike the Apache 2.0 license. If you use MIT/BSD open source software, and some functionality of that software is patented by the author, you could be sued fo…

> Now if you turn around and use the author for patent infringement for something else, you lose the patent grant that came with the software, and you are back to a normal plain old BSD license.

I see no reason to assume that it reverts "back to a normal plain old BSD license" in such a case.

The article linked by Stallman's response that this is a nonfree license doesn't make that assumption, either:

https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/directory-discuss/2017-01...

Re: Explaining React's license

#169

Post by silentstreet » Sat, Aug 19, 2017, 4:35 AM UTC

mcbits wrote: post #149

antoncohen wrote: post #129

Facebook's license is no more dangerous than regular MIT or BSD-style licenses. If you are OK with using MIT or BSD licensed software you should be OK with using Facebook's BSD + Patents software. Here is why: MIT and BSD licenses don't have any patent grants, unlike the Apache 2.0 license. If you use MIT/BSD open source software, and some functionality of that software is patented by the author, you could be sued fo…

I've read it, and I'm pretty sure it says that if you initiate a patent lawsuit against Facebook, you lose the license to use React at all. It doesn't revert to BSD. (EDIT: Apparently that's wrong although the license could certainly be more clear about it.) If React doesn't implement any of their patents, the patent clause offers nothing extra. If it does, it would be damned nice to know which one(s) . Do other libr…

https://code.facebook.com/license-faq which they published a year or so ago explicitly says you keep the BSD license.

Re: Explaining React's license

#170

Post by DannyBee » Sat, Aug 19, 2017, 4:38 AM UTC

carussell wrote: post #79

jwingy wrote: post #60

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.

> how Facebook would feel if all the open source software they currently use incorporated the same license That would work incredibly well to neutralize patents, actually, and would be a huge win for free/open source software. It's surprising not to have seen anyone point out the logical conclusion of a world where every major license includes a React-like stance on patents: it's a world where no one is able to bring…

"it's a world where no one is able to bring patent suits against anyone, because it means they are now violating the licenses of every piece of FOSS they're currently using."

It's also a world where entrenched companies can feel free to use whatever technology they want from smaller competitors without fear of lawsuit, and use it to further entrench themselves :)

I'd put a lot more money on that happening than "happy fun kumbaya singing".

This is among the many reasons that apache, et al chose not to use them when revving their licenses. It's totally worth reading the discussions that happened around these issues back then.

As a friend said WRT to this issue: "Everything old is new again"