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

Explaining React's license

code.facebook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 622 posts

Re: Explaining React's license

#271

Post by Strom »

jlrubin wrote: post #264
Strom wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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've contributed to React before and will continue to do so. I haven't seen a single reason why not to. Just because React doesn't use your favorite license? Well this may shock you but I also use and help develop closed source software. In my view there is nothing morally wron…

> closed source That's not really the problem here. The problem is that by using React, even in a closed source context, you are potentially setting yourself up to not successfully make an IP claim against facebook, even for unrelated technologies.

Not being able to sue with patents is not something I give much value to. Software patents aren't even valid where I live and operate. They concern me only as far as USA has the will to have a global jurisdiction. However if Facebook wants to sue me for something ridiculous and has the USA government's global help, then Apache 2.0 license isn't going to save me, they will find something else.

Re: Explaining React's license

#272

Post by sanxiyn »

Scaevolus wrote: post #220

Almost all of Facebook's "open source" code has the same PATENTS file, which makes them toxic if you can imagine a future where Facebook infringes one of your patents: https://github.com/search?p=5&q=org%3Afacebook+filename%3APA... This includes things far outside the React ecosystem: - Flow (JS type checker, like TypeScript) - prepack (JS optimizing transpiler) - a bunch of Android/iOS UI/debugging frameworks, - all…

I am very happy to report that ZSTD removed PATENTS clause: https://github.com/facebook/zstd/pull/801

Re: Explaining React's license

#274

Post by chrisco255 »

gstein67 wrote: post #44
votepaunchy wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. The PATENTS portion of BSD+Patents does not nullify the BSD License. So you are no worse off than had Facebook simply licensed the code under the BSD License.

That is not entirely true. As stated elsewhere, there is likely an implicit patent license provided by the BSD. The reasoning is basically, "we are [copyright] licensing this cod e to you to use, so [therefore] we must also be providing a corresponding patent license to use the code." Legal scholars are mixed on that, and it hasn't been tested in court. But that implicit license is certainly better than the explicit…

How is a theoretical (i.e. unproven in court), implicit license better than an explicit license you only lose in the event of patent litigation that you initiate?

Re: Explaining React's license

#275

Post by goldenkey »

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…

Nice try Zuck the Cuck

Re: Explaining React's license

#276

Post by chrisco255 »

paxy wrote: post #48
eridius wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook's license means you lose the license to React if you sue Facebook for any patents, not just for patents that are related to React. That's the core problem here.

Exactly. The "BSD + patents" license applies to _all_ of React, not just the parts of React that use Facebook proprietary technology/patents (and they haven't even identified those parts). I'm never going to use React under this license, but this is still worrying to me because more companies could follow Facebook's lead and start using open-source as a nuclear deterrent against patent legislation.

Does the additional patent grant in the Facebook BSD+Patents license terminate if I create a competing product?

No.

Does the additional patent grant in the Facebook BSD+Patents license terminate if I sue Facebook for something other than patent infringement?

No.

Does the additional patent grant in the Facebook BSD+Patents license terminate if Facebook sues me for patent infringement first, and then I respond with a patent counterclaim against Facebook?

No, unless your patent counterclaim is related to Facebook's software licensed under the Facebook BSD+Patents license.

Does termination of the additional patent grant in the Facebook BSD+Patents license cause the copyright license to also terminate?

No.

From: https://code.facebook.com/pages/850928938376556

Re: Explaining React's license

#277

Post by chrisco255 »

joobus wrote: post #52

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 fro…

Does the additional patent grant in the Facebook BSD+Patents license terminate if I create a competing product?

No.

Does the additional patent grant in the Facebook BSD+Patents license terminate if I sue Facebook for something other than patent infringement?

No.

Does the additional patent grant in the Facebook BSD+Patents license terminate if Facebook sues me for patent infringement first, and then I respond with a patent counterclaim against Facebook?

No, unless your patent counterclaim is related to Facebook's software licensed under the Facebook BSD+Patents license.

Does termination of the additional patent grant in the Facebook BSD+Patents license cause the copyright license to also terminate?

No.

From: https://code.facebook.com/pages/850928938376556

Re: Explaining React's license

#278

Post by lqdc13 »

tribby wrote: post #258
amelius wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But does it also provide an alternative to React Native?

yes, weex[1], which is becoming some sort of apache project. it was formerly (?) an alibaba project, not actually sure on the specifics RE: changing of hands. 1. https://weex.apache.org/

I hope they are very good, but it is not a good first impression if your UX framework web page looks like this on mobile:

https://kek.gg/i/C92Fk.png

https://kek.gg/i/89GHzx.png

Re: Explaining React's license

#279

Post by eugeneionesco »

JoshMnem wrote: post #223

I'm not sure if React (and the other projects that contain the PATENTS file) will survive the backlash to this in the long run. Vue.js is rapidly climbing in popularity, and Elm is probably going to go mainstream in 2018. There are alternatives like Mithril and Ember too.

This such a non-issue and affects very small part of those that use React it won't affect the popularity at all.

Re: Explaining React's license

#280

Post by imtringued »

Lazare wrote: post #188
reconbot wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We learned from Java and Google that you can't patent and API. It's not forked from React it's an alternative.

The risk behind Preact isn't the API . Remember, this is a discussion about patents , so what matters is fundamental concepts and algorithms. The most likely thing for Facebook to patent is the concept of a virtual DOM that's diffed to apply updates to the real DOM. IF they have such a patent (and apparently they don't), then any library that has a vdom implementation infringes, including Preact. Of course, if they D…

React is still unsafe because facebook can infringe on your patents and if you sue you will lose your rights to use react.
Post reply on HN