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

501–510 of 622 posts

Re: Explaining React's license

#501

Post by cyphar »

jnbiche wrote: post #494
cyphar wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The second part of my comment is probably more applicable (maybe I should've just excluded the point about private patent applications). Even if a React-related patent was public, it wouldn't be called "Patent on React Framework". It probably wouldn't even use the words JavaScript, HTML, or DOM. You would need to hire a patent lawyer for an extended period of time to have a reasonable amount of certainty that no such patent exists (and even then, it's just an educated guess).

Re: Explaining React's license

#502

Post by alexandercrohde »

I have to say, I think Facebook is in the right on this one. I think the ecosystem would benefit greatly if this were adopted massively.

I also think very few companies are going to have a time where they need to sue FB for patent infringement (how many people have patents, how many of those patents should really exist, how likely is facebook to violate that patent)?

This mostly follows if you believe the world is a better place without software patents at all.

Re: Explaining React's license

#503

Post by Illniyar »

It seems to me the core of the disagreement revolves around whether you believe there is an implicit grant of patent or not.

If you believe the BSD has an implicit grant, then the facebook license is a more limited license. If you don't believe it, then the facebook license is better for the user.

As far as I know there is no president to solve this neither in the U.S. or europe, so both views are valid.

One thing is weird in facebook's behaviour though - they imply that the BSD doesn't have an implicit grant, and so they are benevolently giving away a better license, but if so, then the public outcry should be enough to take it back, if it's just a gesture of good will, and it isn't received as such, what's the point in continuing in this course?

The only explanation they give is that they are more or less on a crusade for people to adapt this license because they believe it will reduce patent lawsuits

Re: Explaining React's license

#504

Post by jnbiche »

jaredklewis wrote: post #105
eridius wrote: post #35

> We've been looking for ways around this and have reached out to ASF to see if we could try to work with them, but have come up empty. There's a pretty obvious solution to this: relicense React. The fact that Facebook isn't even considering that is a pretty strong indication that they "weaponized" their license on purpose. > To this point, though, we haven't done a good job of explaining the reasons behind our BSD +…

I would patiently beg everyone to employ some basic reasoning. Situation A: React is licensed under BSD + PATENTS. You sue Facebook for infringing your widget patent. Turns out Facebook has a patent for something in react. They revoke your grant and counter sue you for infringing that patent. Long legal battle ensues. Situation A: React is licensed under just BSD. You sue Facebook for infringing your widget patent. T…

I personally am most worried about Facebook's attitude toward dissent on this issue. There's clearly an overwhelming number of developers who want Facebook to simply adopt an established open source license, preferably just BSD, with no extra conditions.

The fact that Facebook has continued to ignore this sentiment tells me that it's no longer a place where developers have much influence. I personally don't want to contribute to or use open source software from such an entity.

But that's just my personal opinion. It's a shame, because I've been really impressed and happy with the work Facebook has done in the area of programming languages (Flow, Hack, HHVM, etc.).

Re: Explaining React's license

#505

Post by cyphar »

carussell wrote: post #474
cyphar wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 The thing is, I agree with your premise that we should always push for licenses that (in the long term) will result in a better free software world where threats such as software patents and draconian copyright are effectively neutralised. All three GPLs did this to c…

Please re-review the licenses. > Apache and GPLv3 both tackle this problem because the copyright license is terminated if anyone sues a copyright holder (and GPLv3 even more so because it's copyleft). This is not true of Apache 2.0. Filing a patent suit against someone over a piece of Apache licensed software means the plaintiff loses the grant to patents held by other contributors to that software, but that's the ex…

> Filing a patent suit against someone over a piece of Apache licensed software means the plaintiff loses the grant to patents held by other contributors to that software

Right, but the "right to use" permission is granted as part of the patent license not the copyright license. You're right that I misspoke and the copyright license is not touched, but the effect is similar AFAICS.

> This is also untrue. Your ability to file a countersuit for other patents is explicitly protected by the React grant.

Ah, you're right. I did read the latest version of the document, I guess that sentence must've just slipped by me. My point about asymmetry still stands though.

> Either better or the same, depending on your values, but definitely not worse.

I believe that the asymmetry does not make it better. You could argue it's the same, but I still am not sure I agree.

Re: Explaining React's license

#506

Post by eropple »

andrewaylett wrote: post #380
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.

All these companies are big enough to potentially have a separate patent agreement with Facebook. I don't have any insider knowledge about them (or anyone else, for that matter) to say whether they do, but you should entertain the possibility rather than assuming their risks are greater than yours.

The person in question was talking out of school, and so I have to be very vague (and you can take this for what it's worth because of it, you don't have to believe me), but at least one of those companies listed in the prior post has no such agreement with Facebook.

Re: Explaining React's license

#507

Post by pdfernhout »

qaq wrote: post #417
drieddust wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Angular 2 is MIT licensed. Why you need a patent grant anyways?

because copyright and patents are orthogonal concepts. FB gives you patent grant with restrictions Google does not give you a patent grant at all.

The patent grant is (presumably) implied by the act of licensing under MIT in the absence of other specific restrictions (such as Facebook's PATENTS file as an explicit patent grant with one-sided limitations).

See for example: http://oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/fossandpatents "Some free and open source software licences also explicitly grant the patent rights necessary for the purposes of using, adapting and distributing the code, for example the Apache License v2, the GNU General Public License v3 and the Eclipse Public License. In some jurisdictions, including the UK, it is highly probable that even those free and open source software licences that do not explicitly grant patent rights do in fact provide them implicitly. After all, giving permission to perform a specific act strongly implies permission to perform the steps needed to do so. Thus the permission to redistribute the software granted by all free and open source licences - it can be argued - implies the granting of the right to make use of any of the licensor’s patents which would be infringed by the distribution of the code."

Re: Explaining React's license

#508

Post by koolba »

Lazare wrote: post #462
koolba wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

That would require discovery. React being front end is immediately apparent if in use. You can't hide or deny it.

Re: Explaining React's license

#509

Post by threatofrain »

JoshMnem wrote: post #441
threatofrain wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there any big projects currently written in Elm?

What do you consider big? Elm is still in the early stages. https://www.pivotaltracker.com/blog/Elm-pivotal-tracker/

I'm curious to look at any big and open Elm app, to look at how a big project feels like, especially one that probably has to interact with other JS. I ask only because a precursory search on GitHub revealed little.

Re: Explaining React's license

#510

Post by nojvek »

Lazare wrote: post #381
kavok wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Investors seem to be really fond of patentable or protectable technology. Lets say a start up comes up with a really clever and novel way to accurately predict what kind of a cake a person likes best. If they built a platform in React and then Facebook stole the idea - they couldn't sue Facebook (or any Facebook subsidiaries) without immediately revoking the ability to use React. This isn't only covering Facebook - t…

> If they built a platform in React and then Facebook stole the idea - they couldn't sue Facebook (or any Facebook subsidiaries) without immediately revoking the ability to use React. Untrue. They couldn't sue Facebook (or subsidiary) without immediately losing their right to use any patents Facebook may-or-may-not have on React. Their right to use React would be untouched. So, are there any patents? People have look…

Because patents aren't trade secrets. It's easily verifiable if Facebook does indeed hold those parents. They don't.

Facebook has a shit ton of Money. Zuckerberg is the richest guy in California but that doesn't mean React is the defacto technology on vdom. There are better alternatives now both in perf, ease of use and license niceness.

Just stop using React. It's akin to injecting yourself with HIV knowingly.

Post reply on HN