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

491–500 of 528 posts

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

#491

Post by creatonez »

kelnos wrote: post #71

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…

The root problem is that it's a revocable license. This arguably makes it not a free software license at all.

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

#492

Post by brodock »

uiri wrote: post #488
alecco wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm astounded how everyone things MIT == Apache2. MIT doesn't protect you from patent litigation. This is a backwards move. Facebook is very good at PR painting this as a win for users. See http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent_clauses_in_software_licences... an explanation https://opensource.stackexchange.com/a/1890

The MIT license does not explicitly mention patents. However, depending on the lawyer, an argument could be made that it contains an implicit patent license. I think that Facebook would have an uphill battle arguing that their relicensing didn't include patents after this kerfuffle.

Exactly. This is like: "oh you didn't like to receive the patent under this terms, get this, no patents grant anymore"

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

#493

Post by jayajay »

It's nice being one of those people who wasn't using React because of its strange licensing. Facebook has its history. Now I can say it's really good to see that Facebook make the right call.

I will still not be using React. It's just too heavy, same order of magnitude as jQuery.

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

#494

Post by 0xcde4c3db »

pksadiq wrote: post #397
arca_vorago wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A common misconception is that under GPL all your code must be released to the public. This is not true. You only have to give code to the user after purchase. Now, it's true that the user could then upload your software to the public (under gpl), but many of the issues surrounding that (such as lost sales #) aren't as bad as people imagine they are, and in the foss world are generally made up for by high-maintainenc…

> You only have to give code to the user after purchase. IANAL. You don't really require to give the source code unless the purchased person asks for the source. Most people don't care about the source. And you require only to provide source for people who obtained the binary legally. Nobody else can demand for source code. Say for example, most of the D-Link routers come with a warranty card saying the software is G…

> You don't really require to give the source code unless the purchased person asks for the source.

I think you're mixing mutually exclusive options. As I understand it, GPL requires you to either provide source code up-front on the same terms as the binaries (I think the relevant phrase in GPLv3 is "equivalent access"), or alternatively provide a written offer to provide the source code to anyone who requests it. The reason the offer must be to anyone is that your customers can distribute that offer with the binaries in lieu of source code. That way, they have the ability to redistribute/"convey" the software in a compliant way even though they don't have source code.

> GPL v2 requires you to produce the source code in CD/Floppy (or like media)

Unless I'm missing something, GPLv2 just says "a medium customarily used for software interchange", not specifying that it must be any sort of disk/tape.

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

#495

Post by halostatue »

pksadiq wrote: post #397
arca_vorago wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A common misconception is that under GPL all your code must be released to the public. This is not true. You only have to give code to the user after purchase. Now, it's true that the user could then upload your software to the public (under gpl), but many of the issues surrounding that (such as lost sales #) aren't as bad as people imagine they are, and in the foss world are generally made up for by high-maintainenc…

> You only have to give code to the user after purchase. IANAL. You don't really require to give the source code unless the purchased person asks for the source. Most people don't care about the source. And you require only to provide source for people who obtained the binary legally. Nobody else can demand for source code. Say for example, most of the D-Link routers come with a warranty card saying the software is G…

There’s one other clause that you’re missing: you may not further restrict the redistribution of GNU GPLed software (either source or binary). So D-Link may restrict distribution to “on request” by “people who bought our hardware”, but they cannot stop one or more of those people from redistributing the software obtained thereby.

That, plus the fact that if you incorporate any GNU GPLed software in your own software your own derivative software must be licensable under the GNU GPL, or be more liberally licensed, makes for the uncomfortable discussions with lawyers about use of GNU GPLed software in any company.

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

#496

Post by dis-sys »

x0x0 wrote: post #472
sseppola wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aslo called a "weak patent retaliation clause" vs React's (current) strong patent retaliation clause. I found the explanations in [1] to be very helpful to understand patent clauses. [1]: https://medium.com/@dwalsh.sdlr/react-facebook-and-the-revok...

That link is also worth reading because the author is a lawyer; he claims the React patent clause is a paper tiger.

different people have different opinions, the problem is as long as there are many people who have such legal concerns about react's BSD+PATENT, using react would be considered as suicidal for startups.

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

#498

Post by kabes »

pksadiq wrote: post #397
arca_vorago wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A common misconception is that under GPL all your code must be released to the public. This is not true. You only have to give code to the user after purchase. Now, it's true that the user could then upload your software to the public (under gpl), but many of the issues surrounding that (such as lost sales #) aren't as bad as people imagine they are, and in the foss world are generally made up for by high-maintainenc…

> You only have to give code to the user after purchase. IANAL. You don't really require to give the source code unless the purchased person asks for the source. Most people don't care about the source. And you require only to provide source for people who obtained the binary legally. Nobody else can demand for source code. Say for example, most of the D-Link routers come with a warranty card saying the software is G…

Just out of curiosity: do you know about times people asked d-link for the source and actually got it?

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

#499

Post by pksadiq »

kabes wrote: post #498
pksadiq wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You only have to give code to the user after purchase. IANAL. You don't really require to give the source code unless the purchased person asks for the source. Most people don't care about the source. And you require only to provide source for people who obtained the binary legally. Nobody else can demand for source code. Say for example, most of the D-Link routers come with a warranty card saying the software is G…

Just out of curiosity: do you know about times people asked d-link for the source and actually got it?

No. But as ddwrt and openwrt source codes are already available in public, people may not be interested (because you are not going to get the source of binary-blobs in any case, blame Linus Torvalds for that).

I have found a person that requested source of BMW i3 car software, and he have uploaded the source online[0].

[0] https://github.com/edent/BMW-OpenSource

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

#500

Post by csdreamer7 »

Bahamut wrote: post #334
arca_vorago wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been trying to tell everyone licensing is more important than they realize, but there are so many people who fundamentally misunderstand licensing and therefor just don't care (dwtfyw license for example), or have falsely been trained by subpar instructors at uni and $othertraining about how bsd/mit is the superior license for business because $reasons. The four freedoms and free software solve so many of the pr…

Are you a lawyer? If not, you would be doing a disservice to anyone curious about the topic. My own company's lawyers consider the GPLv3 toxic and not allowed at all for company use in any software we create - that's enough for me.

> Are you a lawyer? If not, you would be doing a disservice to anyone curious about the topic.

> My own company's lawyers consider the GPLv3 toxic and not allowed at all for company use in any software we create - that's enough for me.

Don't just blindly defer to lawyers. Yes, including GPL source code in a proprietary product could sink your company's business model. But using a GPL webserver is no threat. Nor using Linux as a set top box to run your local application (Roku). Nor using GCC to compile the program. (Alot of Playstation 1 games used GCC.)

Your own company's lawyers may be very ignorant on the GPL and it's benefits.

They may simply not understand and are relying on other people to inform them. (I believe Microsoft's old attacks against the GPL used the word toxic.)

I knew a contract lawyer who called the GPL 'very restrictive'. I pointed out the Windows EULA. He never really read it to understand it's far more restrictive terms. He never really looked at a EULA through a lawyer's lens and how much his business would suffer if the the terms were actually exercised. Nor that he didn't have to accept the GPL to use GPL software. Only to redistribute it. I doubt he could find that permissiveness in an EULA.

Lawrence Lessig made a few comments that his lawyer friends couldn't understand how Creative Commons licenses worked. People that have never met each other had legally agreed to binding license. This was in the early 2000's.

Post reply on HN