111–120 of 528 posts
>Next week, we are going to relicense our open source projects React, Jest, Flow, and Immutable.js under the MIT license. Case closed. Could not have picked a better license, thank you Facebook. MIT or bust, I try not to use any other types of licenses in products/libraries I choose for work and personal use.
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 pat…
If the license is not one of the standard ones already in use, and it mentions patents, suddenly legal gets involved and it's a disaster. They're very risk-adverse and no one's really sure what will happen when it gets to court. It doesn't have to make sense - after all, most software patents don't make sense, and most software patent lawsuits don't make sense.
Copyright makes some sense - some entity wrote the code and has (or has not) given explicit permission for others to use it, and under common open-source licenses those terms are reasonably well understood. But patents can come out of left-field and be unrelated to the user or the producer of the code. Being aware of patents (which should not cover what you're doing or should not exist) makes punitive damages worse. Again, best to just put your head in the sand and hope the patents don't notice you. Any language about patents adds complications which no one wants to figure out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I believe the wording you are looking for is "strongly implies", because that's all it is, an implication. There is no proof. (and not even a boat to be seen ;).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Facebook may very well end up in the majority's good graces with this move. Really? They are doing the minimum possible to prevent an exodus from their stack after a public outcry.
There was no sign of an exodus. That’s ludicrously hyperbolic.
This Facebook post gives us hope for GraphQL moving away from BSD+, as it is currently in our stack, but without doubt we are considering a move away due to uncertainty.
Wait, this doesn’t solve anything. They replaced BSD with MIT, which are basically the same license and then they removed any explicit patent grant. So this means the user is actually granted less rights then before. Am I missing something or does this make zero sense?
Implied patent licenses: https://www.wilmerhale.com/pages/publicationsandnewsdetail.a... https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech7.html Basically, if you sell or license a product that requires a patent to work, courts have generally held that you grant an implied patent license for any patents that the product might require. If you explicitly reference patents within the license, however, then whatever t…
React Patent Grant Version 2: https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/b8ba8c83f318b84e42933...
The license granted hereunder will terminate, automatically and without notice, if you (or any of your subsidiaries, corporate affiliates or agents) initiate directly or indirectly, or take a direct financial interest in, any Patent Assertion: (i) against Facebook or any of its subsidiaries or corporate affiliates, (ii) against any party if such Patent Assertion arises in whole or in part from any software, technology, product or service of Facebook or any of its subsidiaries or corporate affiliates, or (iii) against any party relating to the Software.
Apache 2 Section 3: http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.
GPL 3 Section 10 (See also Section 11): https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html
You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License. For example, you may not impose a license fee, royalty, or other charge for exercise of rights granted under this License, and you may not initiate litigation (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that any patent claim is infringed by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the Program or any portion of it.
Edited for spacing
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Facebook may very well end up in the majority's good graces with this move. Really? They are doing the minimum possible to prevent an exodus from their stack after a public outcry.
There was no sign of an exodus. That’s ludicrously hyperbolic.
FWIW, why we prefer Apache 2.0: https://www.cncf.io/blog/2017/02/01/cncf-recommends-aslv2/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Facebook may very well end up in the majority's good graces with this move. Really? They are doing the minimum possible to prevent an exodus from their stack after a public outcry.
There was no sign of an exodus. That’s ludicrously hyperbolic.
Evidently FB saw enough people leaving to prompt this change. No doubt they were also afraid of an exodus of their internal developers on these projects. High-profile developers will move on to companies where they know they'll have greater impact if that's seen to be at risk.
Wait, this doesn’t solve anything. They replaced BSD with MIT, which are basically the same license and then they removed any explicit patent grant. So this means the user is actually granted less rights then before. Am I missing something or does this make zero sense?
Implied patent licenses: https://www.wilmerhale.com/pages/publicationsandnewsdetail.a... https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech7.html Basically, if you sell or license a product that requires a patent to work, courts have generally held that you grant an implied patent license for any patents that the product might require. If you explicitly reference patents within the license, however, then whatever t…
So Facebook's idea works fine if you believe that Patents as a Thing are bad (all patents, not just software patents), and should not be asserted under any circumstances, and it's fine for Facebook to arbitrarily violate any patent of any company who has become dependent on React.