121–130 of 528 posts
This is a very smart move by Facebook, and a win for the open source community as a whole. Why it took so long for the license change is a bit of a mystery, but removing the complications of software patents from their licenses will help further drive adoption and remove the precedent they were in danger of setting.
Nice. Now if only Facebook changed their attitude regarding tracking and profiling of users, letting users be the "product", grabbing the attention of users with psychological tricks and fake news, then perhaps I'd consider using and supporting their open source projects.
>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.
Case not closed, patents still pose a threat. They could (and arguably should) have picked better license, something with explicit permissive patent grant, such as Apache 2.0. This move can barely constitute even as lip service to appease the masses.
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?
I'm likely oversimplifying, but that's about as much as I understand on licenses
What about GraphQL?
There's a patent: https://www.google.com/patents/US9646028,
and a recent discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15289676
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 it's licensed MIT, the Engineers just say "it's MIT license like half of the libraries we already use" and it's a legal non-issue. 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…
dataloader
draft-js
express-graphql
flux
graphql-js
regenerator
relay
yoga