Let me make sure I understand this: The license means that Facebook grants you the right to use the patents on React, but if you sue Facebook for patent infringement, you lose the right to use React?
Explaining React's license
521–530 of 622 posts
Re: Explaining React's license
#522Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry I've forgotten what the status was on the "are APIs copyrightable" question, i.e. the Oracle v Google fight. I'm kind of confused about what wikipedia says happened - there seem to be two final rulings one in favor of Oracle and one in favor of Google with Oracle appealing the second. Is it that APIs are copyrightable but duplicating them is (sometimes?) covered under fair use? Either way, I'd be a little hesit…
You are correct. (For the unfamiliar, there are separate rulings because in this case, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that APIs are copyrightable, then remanded back to the district court to re-try the case in light of the new decision about copyrightability, which then found that reimplementation of the API was covered under fair use.)
Only in the US. In the EU, in particular, APIs cannot be copyrighted[0].
Namely: "For the avoidance of doubt, it has to be made clear that only the expression of a computer program is protected and that ideas and principles which underlie any element of a program, including those which underlie its interfaces, are not protected by copyright under this Directive."
[0] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:320...
Re: Explaining React's license
#523Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, I planned to learn more about React, but reading now this convinced me to learn Vue.js instead. It's under MIT license developed by a single person in addition to community's contribution. This link is rather interesting https://vuejs.org/v2/guide/comparison.html#React
Alternatively there's this: https://github.com/developit/preact Preact is a fast 3kB alternative to React, with the same ES2015 API as that of React. Preact is MIT licensed and does not have any additional conditions beyond that.
IANAL, but the problem with MIT is that it doesn't give you anything in relation to patents. I.e. it doesn't even mention them. In this respect, it's no better than React's BSD without patents. I.e. MIT and BSD are quite similar.
Re: Explaining React's license
#524Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 distribut…
The big question about an implied patent license would be whether or not it is revocable.
In the specific cases of the BSD and MIT copyright licenses note that the licenses do not say that they are irrevocable. A license granted for no consideration is generally revocable unless it specifically says that it is not.
There are substitutes for consideration. It is an open question as far as I know whether or not those apply in the case of free software and make licenses like MIT and BSD irrevocable.
If you use BSD or MIT licensed patented software that does not come with an explicit patent grant, you'll have to deal with these arguments if the patent owner decides to go to court:
1. There is no implied patent license,
2. If there is an implied patent license it is revocable and they revoked yours,
3. The copyright license is revocable, they revoked yours, and that implicitly revokes the implied patent license (even if it is irrevocable normally).
It's so much safer to try to stick to licenses that say they are irrevocable and include an explicit patent grant.
Re: Explaining React's license
#525[deleted]
Re: Explaining React's license
#526Re: Explaining React's license
#527I 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 think a good principle is to never assume malicious intent, but never tolerate an abusive position either.
So, Facebook, lets assume, isn't being malicious and genuinely feels this is the right approach to deal with what they consider to be "meritless" lawsuits... but at the same time, if this response-- genuine as it may be-- gives them abusive power, don't abide it.
Similar principle for politicians-- never support Obama/Trump having a power you wouldn't want Trump/Obama wielding.
For any aspect of power, assume the most abusive historical figure has it-- should they have it? IF not then don't grant it to even people you like.
Re: Explaining React's license
#528Once someone told me a story about two company that were building cars.
One was building slick cars the other not so slick cars but with robust tires that could roll on spikes, additionally they were silently buying roads.
So, there were quite even on the market, but one day suddenly spikes just popped up from roads.
At, the time when I heard this story the "spike" company was referring to Microsoft.
So much about "do not be evil" policy although that is Google slogan one must ask is the Angular or Node.js next?
21st century and still greed for money and monopoly "one to rule them all" screwing open trusting hard working guy ... I know this is side ways but: how should we trust any other thing they release or talk about privacy, sharing, VR, Basic Income ... ?!
Re: Explaining React's license
#529Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alternatively there's this: https://github.com/developit/preact Preact is a fast 3kB alternative to React, with the same ES2015 API as that of React. Preact is MIT licensed and does not have any additional conditions beyond that.
IANAL, but the problem with MIT is that it doesn't give you anything in relation to patents. I.e. it doesn't even mention them. In this respect, it's no better than React's BSD without patents. I.e. MIT and BSD are quite similar.
The MIT license doesn't mention copyright either, except to state who holds the copyright and forbid you from changing that statement.
The actual permission notice says you have the right to use the software without restriction. To me, a layman, it would seem contradictory and unfair if they later claimed that they held previously unmentioned patents that restricted your use of the software.
Re: Explaining React's license
#530Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could anyone with experience porting from one to the other let us know how it went?
For many codebases, Preact can be use simple as: npm i -S preact preact-compat then add this to webpack config: { "resolve": { "alias": { "react": "preact-compat", "react-dom": "preact-compat" } } } https://preactjs.com/guide/switching-to-preact
woot.
brb :)