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

461–470 of 622 posts

Re: Explaining React's license

#461

Post by mygo »

jaredklewis wrote: post #227
kavok wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If all situations are equal, why do they need the protection anyways? This is out of step with every other comparable library / framework / whatever.

What protection? The PATENTS takes rights away from Facebook, and gives rights to grantees. Facebook is in a stronger position without it. They added it to be nice. Without patents file: - Facebook can sue you for any reason, including react related patent infringement - You have no patent grant for anything in react - You can sue Facebook for anything, including patent infringement. With patents file: - Facebook can…

Wrong. Without patents file there is an implicit patent grant.

Re: Explaining React's license

#462

Post by Lazare »

koolba wrote: post #431
Lazare wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> immediately sue me for infringement. Of what? Patents are public; link me the patent you think they'd sue you for infringing. :)

> Of what? Patents are public; link me the patent you think they'd sue you for infringing. :) If they really want to crush little ol' me, I'm sure their legal team can find something in their existing patent warchest that would apply to React. Plus we don't know if they have applied for patents that would apply to React that are still under review.

> If they really want to crush little ol' me, I'm sure their legal team can find something in their existing patent warchest that would apply to React.

Yes, but also to your non-React code, right?

Like...seriously, what patent do you think they might have that somehow only applies to React and not all the other modern frameworks that have been busily copying React?

Re: Explaining React's license

#463

Post by delambo »

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.

The stats don't really suggest that vue is rapidly climbing in popularity:

https://npm-stat.com/charts.html?package=react&package=vue&p...

While popularity might not have anything to do with your use case, it still means a lot in terms of ecosystem, tooling, training, support and documentation.

Re: Explaining React's license

#464

Post by evgen »

throwaway13337 wrote: post #374
patrickaljord wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a list of companies using React: - Microsoft - Uber - Yahoo Mail - Dropbox - Airbnb - Netflix - NY Times If they're ok with the license, you probably shouldn't worry too much. Basically, if you don't own any patents or if your company is smaller than any of the above, you should be ok.

You don't know that they weren't granted separate licensing deals. I assume they were. This license is likely to protect facebook against patent litigation that a startup might claim facebook is in violation of. It's not too hard to imagine a scenario where the next snapchat-like-startup is using react native. Facebook is then in a super leveraged position against them legally. Snap stories are now facebook stories,…

A more likely explanation is that these large orgs employ real lawyers who looked at the licence and grant and who then approved the use of react because they are professional lawyers who actually understand the legalities involved, unlike 99% of the commenters in this thread.

Re: Explaining React's license

#465

Post by Lazare »

cyphar wrote: post #437
Lazare wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The key phrase I was replying to was "Facebook will revoke your React license." Facebook cannot revoke your React license in any circumstances, as that link makes clear.

They revoke the React patent grant, which effectively downgrades "the React license" to just a stock BSD 3-clause license. At that point they will likely counter-sue you for patent infringement. In my mind that situation is effectively identical to losing "the right to use" license on grounds of patent suit (like Apache). Interestingly, in Apache you'd still be sued for patent infringement (not copyright infringement…

> They revoke the React patent grant, which effectively downgrades "the React license" to just a stock BSD 3-clause license. At that point they will likely counter-sue you for patent infringement.

Yes, but for what patent? People have looked; none have been found. :)

Re: Explaining React's license

#466

Post by jaredklewis »

mygo wrote: post #435
jaredklewis wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Situation C is identical to situation A and B. You sue Facebook (or any affiliate) and Facebook counter sues you. You get counter sued whether or not there is a PATENTS file.

No it is NOT identical. In situation A/C (React is licensed under BSD + PATENTS), you have explicitly agreed to have what is essentially your lawful use of React immediately revoked if you sue Facebook for patent infringement. So you sue Facebook, and whether or not your suit is of merit: You have to immediately stop using React. This actually prevents people who are dependent on React from suing Facebook for patent…

> In situation A/C (React is licensed under BSD + PATENTS), you have explicitly agreed to have what is essentially your lawful use of React immediately revoked if you sue Facebook for patent infringement.

No you haven't. That is not what is written in the PATENTS file. The PATENTS gives you a patent grant to any react patent facebook may or may not have, that you can only lose if you sue facebook for patent infringement. Without the patents file, you don't have any grant to those patents.

> You have to immediately stop using React.

No you don't. Why do you think this is the case? There is nothing in the PATENTS file about this at all. All it says is that you lose the grant. If a court grants a preliminary injunction, then yes, you have to stop using it immediately, but guess what: assuming Facebook has some react patents, they can apply for a preliminary injunction against you whether or not the PATENTS file is in there. With just plain jane BSD they can also get a preliminary injunction.

> In addition, without an explicit patent grant, a patent grant is implied with the license.

It's totally misleading to state unsettled law as fact like this. It's wishful thinking. Not being a patent holder myself, I would like it to be true as much as anyone, but the fact is that until this stuff ends up in court, just assuming that a license to redistribute also implies a license to any patents is just a theory.

Re: Explaining React's license

#467

Post by vonmoltke »

chrisco255 wrote: post #233
fhrow4484 wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a good point, especially since the concrete examples won't possibly be about patent trolls. Why would patent trolls (aka Non practicing entities) care about loosing rights "to make, have made, use, sell, offer to sell, import, and otherwise transfer the [React] Software". (as defined in https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/b8ba8c83f318b84e42933... )?

Look at Oracle v. Google...that was a mess. Samsung v. Apple...also a mess. Not all patent litigation is from trolls alone.

Oracle v. Google was not patent litigation (unless you are referring to something other than the oft-cited but not applicable to this situation Java API suits).

Re: Explaining React's license

#468

Post by Lazare »

falcolas wrote: post #434
Lazare wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Using React just opens you up to liability, with no real benefit (other than using React). How? Again, if they have a patent, they can sue you if you use one of the alternatives mentioned. If they don't have a patent, they can't sue you if you use React. What's your thinking behind saying using React adds liability? Because to me, it looks like either it does nothing or it reduces liability.

You have it backwards. If you have a patent, and use React, you can't sue Facebook if they use your patent.

> If you have a patent, and use React, you can't sue Facebook if they use your patent.

Citation needed. Let's say I have an awesome VR patent, and a React based website. I find out the Oculus violated my patent, what happens next?

Answer: I sue them. :) Nothing about the React license stops this; I will even still have a right to use React. What I won't have is a right to use any patents that Facebook might have on React. But Facebook, as far as is known, has no such patents.

Re: Explaining React's license

#469

Post by allover »

kevinflo wrote: post #340
IanKelling wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if a project's license is radioactive It's not a copyright license. It's a patent grant/license which is completely independent. This matters for several reasons, including when just saying "license", this usually means a copyright license. If this patent grant get's revoked, you are back to simply using the BSD license with no patent grant. I've read so many people say "you'd have to stop using react if you sued f…

I've seen it pointed out before though that it would fall back to just the BSD license and others countered saying that was definitely not the case. It seems to be yet another fundamental thing about this that isn't clear or agreed upon at all. Still, your point is important and I hope people read it and consider it. Also by "license" I meant the "BSD + Patents license" as the Facebook writeup put it.

> I've seen it pointed out before though that it would fall back to just the BSD license and others countered saying that was definitely not the case

Those others were wrong. Facebook have made this very clear in their FAQ [1]:

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

> No.

[1] https://code.facebook.com/pages/850928938376556

Re: Explaining React's license

#470

Post by yladiz »

IanKelling wrote: post #336
DannyBee wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 for patent infringement. " Every single lawyer i've ever spoken to strongly believes implied licenses will protect you very well here. Like, among us open source lawyers, it's pretty much the one thing people ag…

> Once their is an explicit grant, any implicit grant you would have gotten is extinguished. Citation needed. And if you aren't planning to sue over software patents, then the author is clearly correct that this is strictly better than BSD/MIT alone.

> sue over software patents

The grant isn't specifically about software patents, it's about all patents.

Post reply on HN