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

491–500 of 622 posts

Re: Explaining React's license

#491

Post by JoshMnem »

delambo wrote: post #463
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.

See: https://github.com/showcases/front-end-javascript-frameworks

These things usually don't happen overnight. It will be interesting to take another look about a year from now.

Re: Explaining React's license

#492

Post by mygo »

IanKelling wrote: post #316
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…

> 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 think you're missing the plot. Currently, there is a big philosophical debate on whether OSS licenses like the BSD include an implicit patent grant. When Facebook explicitly includes a revocable patent grant, your argument of the BSD license "with no patent grant" is self-fulfilling. But if the PATENTS file had never existed, then what you have is "a BSD license with a potentially implicit patent grant", which has never been tried in court so could set a precedence, but is waaaay better for the consumer than a "BSD license with no patent grant because that patent grant has been explicitly granted and now revoked".

Re: Explaining React's license

#493

Post by jnbiche »

vonmoltke wrote: post #476
jnbiche wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your explanation really doesn't jibe with the explanation given in Facebook's post. If what you say is true, why do they make a point about this patent grant protecting them against patent trolls? There's something tricky about this that I can't figure out, but I really have a hard-time believing they're acting in good faith here.

As cited at multiple other places in this thread, Facebook's own FAQ on the licensing explicitly states what GP just did.

If we use the "minimalist" interpretation like you and others propose here, then I'm stumped by Facebook would bother. It's such a tiny, ultra-specific advantage for Facebook. Why throw this gas on the fire for such a minimal advantage? Just leave it alone.

I suspect this must be coming from Zuckerberg. He's pissed off that some patent troll, somewhere, was using Facebook open source, and he issued an edict. That's the only way this makes any sense at all.

Re: Explaining React's license

#494

Post by jnbiche »

cyphar wrote: post #480
Lazare wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. :)

Patent applications are secret, not to mention that software patents can be very difficult to interpret and search for. RMS gave a fairly long talk about the various problems with software patents[1], and the difficulty in being able to find all software patents that may be related to a project is one of them. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiKRt3-FbM0

Patent applications are public for a minimal time period, 18 months at the very most. But obviously patents are public. React has been open source for over 2 years now. It's highly-likely, almost certain, that any React-related Facebook patent would now be public.

Re: Explaining React's license

#495

Post by mygo »

jaredklewis wrote: post #466
mygo wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 infringem…

It's totally misleading for you to state unsettled law as fact like this. None of this has been tried in court so even what you have written carries a degree of speculation.

When Facebook explicitly includes a revocable patent grant (aka the PATENTS file), the argument of it being a "BSD license with no patent grant" when the patent grant is revoked is self-fulfilling. But if the PATENTS file had never existed, then what you have is a "BSD license with a debateably implicit patent grant", which has been the topic of debate long before React even existed, and has yet to be tried in court so could set a precedent, and is a way better bet for the consumer than a "BSD license with no patent grant because that patent grant has been explicitly granted and now revoked, no debate, period".

Re: Explaining React's license

#496

Post by jnbiche »

Steeeve wrote: post #218
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.

There is a serious problem with the Facebook license. I've heard this and many other "it'll be ok because..." kind of statements in discussions about Facebook licensing. The problem is that there is no clear agreement as to what the ramifications are, and no real clarity offered by facebook after repeated efforts by the community to obtain it. The only clarity they offer is that they have their license in place for l…

> For a project involving a corporate entity or an institution, it is irresponsible to leverage any facebook licensed software without a legal review of the license.

And this is a problem, because we all know how much of a huge pain in the ass it is to get any new license or legal issue relating to open source cleared with a big corporation's legal dept.

I think this is a pretty clear signal from Facebook that at least part of the company really doesn't care if people use Facebook open source or not. After all the work some in the company have done to promote Facebook open source, to great benefit to the company for recruiting and for synergy with other large company open source, that is a big surprise to me.

This kind of tone-deaf response from part of the company with the other half frustrated that it's causing so many problems reminds me more of how large old, moribund companies like IBM operate. It's a surprise that Facebook's already there, or at least starting to be.

Re: Explaining React's license

#497

Post by jnbiche »

raulk wrote: post #424
jfaucett wrote: post #379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, preact looks like a good drop-in replacement. The good thing about the MIT license is you know what you are getting. I also agree with the OP, even viewing FB in the best light possible, about the best case you can make is that they want to hedge any risks to themselves while profiting from OSS contributions and the OSS marketing. As it stands, there is virtually no case to be made for them wanting to contribute…

As I said in my article [1]: Patents protect ideas and inventions. In most cases, patent assertion cases are not black or white — win or loose. Infringement evaluation is complex and costly. A lawsuit can cost hundreds of thousands or millions to file and pursue. You might have a 85% confidence that FB violated a patent of yours, but to even pursue it it’s going to cost you a lot of money. If on top of that, you will…

Thank you. You pretty eloquently summed up my thoughts about this entire situation. I'm sad, because Facebook runs some pretty cool open source projects. But I will no longer contribute to them if this is their attitude. It's about as far from community-oriented as I can imagine.

Re: Explaining React's license

#498

Post by DougBTX »

allover wrote: post #469
kevinflo wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That answer only addresses the "copyright license", others argue that plain BSD is a "license to use".

If BSD is a "license to use", then it is implicitly a copyright license _and_ a patent licence.

Assuming the above, the argument goes that the implicit patent license in plain BSD is overridden by the explicit patent license in BSD+Patents, and that the explicit one is much more restrictive than the (unwritten) implicit one.

The FAQ doesn't address that.

Re: Explaining React's license

#499

Post by jnbiche »

Strom wrote: post #253
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…

> 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…

> Just because React doesn't use your favorite license?

No, that's not the problem for many(most?) of us. The problem is that Facebook has decided to throw out innovative extra conditions to an old and established license. Innovation is typically not a good thing with open source licenses. It just throws a lot of uncertainty and confusion onto the situation, and for what gain? In fact, no one has any clue how this patent grant will work in practice.

If we believe the minimalist interpretation that some people are proposing here, Facebook has gained virtually nothing here. And that fact in itself makes people suspicious, because why would they dig in for almost no gain?

Re: Explaining React's license

#500

Post by ai_ia »

Okay, I need some clarifications now regarding the whole issue. I am building my web app using React and will be extending to mobile platforms using React-Native. The product is kind of paradigm change in the way we deal with education, so I will at some point consider getting a patent protecting my own interests.

My questions are as follows: 1. If fb copies the entire thing, repackages it as something different and tries to make it free and open source. I wouldn't be able to sue them just because I used React and React-Native?

Is that all what the patent license means or I am missing something here?

Post reply on HN