Live data from Hacker News

Relicensing React, Jest, Flow, and Immutable.js

code.facebook.com

31–40 of 528 posts

Re: Relicensing React, Jest, Flow, and Immutable.js

#31
post #10

Why not Apache 2.0 though? That would have been a logical choice.

MIT license doesn't contain any patent clause. So it is the same as BSD + Patents with patents part revoked. Thus, in theory, FB can still have a case on patent over React even if you use the source with copyright grant.

Apache 2.0 has a patent grant from my understanding.

Re: Relicensing React, Jest, Flow, and Immutable.js

#33
post #10

Why not Apache 2.0 though? That would have been a logical choice.

Apache 2.0 has a patent clause going in the opposite direction of what they were originally trying to do. That's probably why they didn't use it.

For what it's worth, the software that I'm developing at a Big 4 is released under the Apache 2.0 license.

Re: Relicensing React, Jest, Flow, and Immutable.js

#34
post #6

Looks like React Native isn't included in the list for a license update.

That's what gets me. There's a very narrow list of packages that they've selected for the MIT treatment. Why isn't the blog post something along the lines of "We're re-licensing all of our open source libraries under the MIT License and removing their patent clauses"? It seems like they're still trying to play games, and are only buckling to the pressure for a tiny number of libraries.

See the fourth paragraph.

> This shift naturally raises questions about the rest of Facebook's open source projects. Many of our popular projects will keep the BSD + Patents license for now. We're evaluating those projects' licenses too, but each project is different and alternative licensing options will depend on a variety of factors.

Re: Relicensing React, Jest, Flow, and Immutable.js

#35
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what gets me. There's a very narrow list of packages that they've selected for the MIT treatment. Why isn't the blog post something along the lines of "We're re-licensing all of our open source libraries under the MIT License and removing their patent clauses"? It seems like they're still trying to play games, and are only buckling to the pressure for a tiny number of libraries.

My less cynical view (hope) maybe react-native isn't due for an update soon and they'll do it next time there's a version bump?

You don't need to update anything else besides the license when changing the license, though? There's no version bump required.

Re: Relicensing React, Jest, Flow, and Immutable.js

#38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what gets me. There's a very narrow list of packages that they've selected for the MIT treatment. Why isn't the blog post something along the lines of "We're re-licensing all of our open source libraries under the MIT License and removing their patent clauses"? It seems like they're still trying to play games, and are only buckling to the pressure for a tiny number of libraries.

See the fourth paragraph. > This shift naturally raises questions about the rest of Facebook's open source projects. Many of our popular projects will keep the BSD + Patents license for now. We're evaluating those projects' licenses too, but each project is different and alternative licensing options will depend on a variety of factors.

So the list of packages they're truly open sourcing is intentionally small, then. They're only truly open sourcing the ones that are very popular and that had a huge amount of outcry over the license. That makes it worse.
Post reply on HN