Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Relicensing React, Jest, Flow, and Immutable.js

code.facebook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 528 posts

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

#71

Post by kelnos »

So... I guess I still don't understand what was wrong with BSD+Patents.

I get that there's legal uncertainty: I can imagine some companies, especially larger ones, not wanting to give up their patent-suit option just because one random small team in their org is using React. And barriers to adoption aren't a great idea when one of your goals is wide adoption.

Overall, though, I think making it much harder to file patent suits -- at least for software patents -- is a great thing. Facebook's (and others') implementation of it might have left something to be desired, and they're certainly a large company with a lot of resources behind them, so the power dynamic might be a bit lopsided, but...

Well, let's just say I'm a small company or individual who wants to release some open source code. Doing so under a BSD+Patents-style license gives me some protection from any big players who decide to use my software. How is this a bad thing?

I suppose I hold a pretty strong anti-patents stance, though. I'd be happy if (most?) patent protection just went away entirely.

As an aside, note that it looks like FB is going with straight MIT. So they're not even giving users of their software a patent grant at all anymore[1], and reserve the right to sue you later just for using their software, if they happen to have a patent on something in it.

[1] Yes, there are some legal opinions that the MIT license's language includes an implicit patent grant, but I don't believe that's a settled matter.

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

#72

Post by ploxiln »

jhgg wrote: post #47
damosneeze wrote: post #37

Thank you, Wordpress.[1] [1] https://ma.tt/2017/09/on-react-and-wordpress/

I doubt it was related. The wheels to get this in motion must have started months in advanced, probably around the time ASF started advising against this license (labeling at as Category-X [1]) [1] https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x

It was only a month ago that Facebook re-confirmed its commitment to its patent license: https://code.facebook.com/posts/112130496157735/explaining-r... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15050841

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

#74

Post by carussell »

chadaustin wrote: post #42
0xbear wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s asymmetrical in the sense that your license terminates even if you sue them for something that’s not in the software you’re using. I.e. they rip off your feature, and you’re using React, you’re f##d.

If you sued Facebook, you would have lost the patent grant, but not the copyright. With the new license, there's no patent grant at all, so if any code in React is patented, you're in the same boat as you'd have been if you'd sued in the prior situation. Edit: It seems like some consider MIT, unlike BSD, to have an implied patent grant based on its wording: https://www.scribd.com/document/46088081/Closing-the-Loophol…

Keep in mind that holding a patent allows the patentholder to prohibit someone else from importing, making, selling, or using some product or practice.

The MIT license gives you the rights to "use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software", and that's not even exhaustive. (See "without restriction" and "without limitation".)

Is there something missing from the second list that you think needs protection from the powers granted to patentholders (the things in the first list)?

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

#75

Post by matthewmacleod »

JamesFM wrote: post #65
adambrenecki wrote: post #36

Wait, so they're replacing a license that has a dodgy patent grant that everyone distrusted, with a license that doesn't have a patent grant at all? Why not Apache?

Yeah, exactly, what does this actually accomplish besides putting the user in a worse situation where they are no longer given any sort of patent grant?

At least it might give the louder parts of the community that have been consistently complaining about this issue a good reason to stop shouting quite as much

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

#76

Post by lelandbatey »

jhgg wrote: post #47
damosneeze wrote: post #37

Thank you, Wordpress.[1] [1] https://ma.tt/2017/09/on-react-and-wordpress/

I doubt it was related. The wheels to get this in motion must have started months in advanced, probably around the time ASF started advising against this license (labeling at as Category-X [1]) [1] https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x

In a statement from Facebook on August 18th, 33 days ago[0]:

    We have considered possible changes carefully, but we won't be changing our
    default license or React's license at this time. We recognize that we may lose
    some React community members because of this decision. We are sorry for that,
    but we need to balance our desire to participate in open source with our desire
    to protect ourselves from costly litigation.
Given that they apparently didn't think it was a big enough deal then, and what changed was Wordpress, I don't think it's incorrect to give them some credit.

[0] - https://code.facebook.com/posts/112130496157735/explaining-r...

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

#77

Post by madeofpalk »

veb wrote: post #17
jonny_eh wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was it asymmetrical? I thought it was a "we won't sue you for anything in this software, unless you sue us first". This change still allows them to sue you for any reason.

to be fair, Facebook could still sue anyone for any reason they can think of irregardless of what you're using! ;-)

They could, but you would still get to keep the PATENTS clause. It was asymmetrical, but in the direction against Facebook.

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

#78

Post by damosneeze »

jhgg wrote: post #47
damosneeze wrote: post #37

Thank you, Wordpress.[1] [1] https://ma.tt/2017/09/on-react-and-wordpress/

I doubt it was related. The wheels to get this in motion must have started months in advanced, probably around the time ASF started advising against this license (labeling at as Category-X [1]) [1] https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-x

I disagree. I think it was entirely related. Facebook could likely put up with a few dissenters here and there, but a major defector such as Wordpress is a canary: they likely feared that this would be the first domino to topple React's supremacy.

FB: "...we know that many teams went through the process of selecting an alternative library to React. We're sorry for the churn. We don't expect to win these teams back by making this change, but we do want to leave the door open."

This can seem like a response to the community at large, but can also be read as a direct response to Wordpress' comments:

WP: Automattic will also use whatever we choose for Gutenberg to rewrite Calypso — that will take a lot longer, and Automattic still has no issue with the patents clause, but the long-term consistency with core is worth more than a short-term hit to Automattic’s business from a rewrite. Core WordPress updates go out to over a quarter of all websites, having them all inherit the patents clause isn’t something I’m comfortable with.

Now if someone (i.e. an Actual, Impartial Lawyer) can explain if changing to MIT actually changes anything.

EDIT:

As others have pointed out, FB reaffirmed its decision to maintain the patents clause on Aug 18th (33 days ago): We recognize that we may lose some React community members because of this decision. [1] But they change their minds 8 days after the Matt published the On React and Wordpress article.

This pretty much proves that the decision to move to MIT was heavily influenced -- or perhaps in direct response to -- Wordpress' decision to ditch React.

[1]https://code.facebook.com/posts/112130496157735/explaining-r...

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

#79

Post by s73ver_ »

jameside wrote: post #49
vvanders wrote: post #6

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

The author of this Facebook Engineering post confirmed that React Native's license currently is the same as it's always been: https://twitter.com/dmwlff/status/911348886882607104 . I don't want to get into a big discussion about precise details here but pragmatically both the MIT and Facebook BSD+Patents licenses work well for most businesses, in particular those that aren't seeking to claim patent infringement again…

I may not intend to go suing FB for patent infringement, but if they infringe on one of my patents, or if they sue me for patent infringement, it's really my only recourse.
Post reply on HN