Facebook React.js License • Hacker News Board

Re: Facebook React.js License

#111

Post by Flimm » Wed, Oct 12, 2016, 5:18 PM UTC

dmayle wrote: post #79

lucb1e wrote: post #62

The way I read it, it's not evil. It's a known and deliberate shortcoming of many licenses (e.g. BSD) not to include patent stuff because it makes everything unnecessarily complex. There was recently an article about why BSD and MIT are so popular, and it's because they're concise and understandable. There is a reason WTFPL exists and some developers resort to it as a way to avoid legalese. Facebook clearly was aware…

I agree with you, but I understand the issue being raised. The way I see this, the issue breaks down three ways (not chronologically): 1) Facebook publishes open source software, that everyone is free to use under copyright law. Everyone agrees this is a good thing. 2) The copyrighted software also includes the use of patented inventions, Facebook adds a patent license to assert that there are no submarine patents (t…

I'm not sure I agree that this is analogous to copyleft. Copyleft says that you must license all distributed dirivitives under the same license, but it doesn't affect any other code you produce, you could still sue Facebook for infringing on your copyright in unrelated works. Whereas Facebook's new custom license only grants you permission to use and distribute React if you never sue Facebook for patent infringement, even if the patent is unrelated to React.

Re: Facebook React.js License

#112

Post by ComodoHacker » Wed, Oct 12, 2016, 5:21 PM UTC

cjbprime wrote: post #47

The argument that "This is Not Open Source Software" feels unsupported and very sloppy. > Thus, the licensee pays a price to use the library. It is not a price paid with money. [..] I could be missing something, but I have never seen any other software license use such a condition and also claim to be an open source license. This just isn't thinking creatively. The GPL also requires a "price to be paid, but not with…

Mush simpler. Open source != free as in free beer. That's enough to bust this argument.

Re: Facebook React.js License

#113

Post by gcp » Wed, Oct 12, 2016, 5:22 PM UTC

draw_down wrote: post #105

I'm not a lawyer so I can't say with certainty, but I'm sure Facebook could make React's license a bit nicer in some ways. But I can't buy it as a reason for not using React, that sounds bogus to me. Facebook isn't gonna come sue your beer-ranking app company over a patent beef.

The Facebook competitor that is considering buying out your beer-ranking app making company might reconsider, though.

Re: Facebook React.js License

#114

Post by bryanlarsen » Wed, Oct 12, 2016, 5:23 PM UTC

RodericDay wrote: post #107

lucb1e wrote: post #62

The way I read it, it's not evil. It's a known and deliberate shortcoming of many licenses (e.g. BSD) not to include patent stuff because it makes everything unnecessarily complex. There was recently an article about why BSD and MIT are so popular, and it's because they're concise and understandable. There is a reason WTFPL exists and some developers resort to it as a way to avoid legalese. Facebook clearly was aware…

Imagine I come up with a really cool middle-out compression algorithm. I also build my online presence using React.js. If Facebook uses my algorithm without my permission, and I sue them, do I open myself to being sued for using React.js?

IANAL, but:

Your license to React.js patents terminates. Your license to those patents was valid before you sued, so you cannot be sued for past damages. If you continue to use React.js after you sue, you then would become vulnerable.

But your usage of React.js has little to do with that. Any patent that Facebook has that applies to React.js probably also applies to pretty much any other modern web framework. There are tons of Facebook patents that you're violating already, whether you use React.js or not.

Patents are only useful for trolls and big companies. Any little guy trying to assert patents is going to lose big time in the counter-suit.

Re: Facebook React.js License

#115

Post by Flimm » Wed, Oct 12, 2016, 5:24 PM UTC

happytrails wrote: post #85

zpao wrote: post #75

Hi, Paul from the React team here. There have been lots of questions about the license+patents combo we use. Recently our legal team answered some of those questions. https://code.facebook.com/license-faq

Hey Paul, why not get rid of all the legalese and make this bird free? "Do what you want, no warranty"

I think it's understandable that Facebook want to be protected from the possibility that contributer X contributes code, and then sues Facebook for patent infringement, because the code X contributed was patented. This concern is well addressed by Apache license 2, there was no need for this custom license that goes too far.

Re: Facebook React.js License

#116

Post by brlewis » Wed, Oct 12, 2016, 5:24 PM UTC

dmayle wrote: post #79

lucb1e wrote: post #62

The way I read it, it's not evil. It's a known and deliberate shortcoming of many licenses (e.g. BSD) not to include patent stuff because it makes everything unnecessarily complex. There was recently an article about why BSD and MIT are so popular, and it's because they're concise and understandable. There is a reason WTFPL exists and some developers resort to it as a way to avoid legalese. Facebook clearly was aware…

I agree with you, but I understand the issue being raised. The way I see this, the issue breaks down three ways (not chronologically): 1) Facebook publishes open source software, that everyone is free to use under copyright law. Everyone agrees this is a good thing. 2) The copyrighted software also includes the use of patented inventions, Facebook adds a patent license to assert that there are no submarine patents (t…

Facebook adds a patent license to assert that there are no submarine patents

That there are no submarine patents owned by Facebook. There's no protection against third-party software patents. A true patentleft is not possible. Mutually-assured infringement is still the best possible scenario under the current system.

Re: Facebook React.js License

#117

Post by Flimm » Wed, Oct 12, 2016, 5:26 PM UTC

matt4077 wrote: post #99

Egidius wrote: post #55

I agree. I was working at a somewhat large IT company (~30k employees) this year. I made a plea for React and while our development section agreed, it got bounced by legal because of these points. If Facebook is really serious about Open Source, they also have to make their licence so that every organisation is free to use it.

Being "serious about Open Source" doesn't mean a commitment to do anything to support people using your software. It's the opposite, actually: the original copyleft licenses such as the GPL were explicitly designed to promote Open Source by hindering adoption in some cases, namely those where companies want to distribute derivative works commercially. Then the BSD/MIT-style licenses weakened this restriction. So you'…

See my other comment on why this is not analogous to copyleft, and therfore the term 'patentleft' isn't very useful here.

Re: Facebook React.js License

#118

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Oct 12, 2016, 5:26 PM UTC

matt4077 wrote: post #99

Egidius wrote: post #55

I agree. I was working at a somewhat large IT company (~30k employees) this year. I made a plea for React and while our development section agreed, it got bounced by legal because of these points. If Facebook is really serious about Open Source, they also have to make their licence so that every organisation is free to use it.

Being "serious about Open Source" doesn't mean a commitment to do anything to support people using your software. It's the opposite, actually: the original copyleft licenses such as the GPL were explicitly designed to promote Open Source by hindering adoption in some cases, namely those where companies want to distribute derivative works commercially. Then the BSD/MIT-style licenses weakened this restriction. So you'…

[deleted]

Re: Facebook React.js License

#119

Post by gcp » Wed, Oct 12, 2016, 5:27 PM UTC

matt4077 wrote: post #109

gcp wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook's patent license doesn't grant you any patents outside the ones used by React. It does grant them freedom to use any patent you may have (if you use their software). See the problem? Even if you don't like patents, it makes the playing field totally uneven.

It still lowers the value of IP patents, since that value has most often manifest itself in suing Facebook/Apple etc. With their value being even marginally reduced, maybe some patents will never be filed, or the value proposition of setting up patent-litigation entities is reduced enough to discourage it. Basically this is net-positive for anyone who doesn't own or plan to own patents, even if it is even better for…

Patent litigation against such companies is often carried out by specialized entities, so those have nothing to lose by having their "React" patents revoked.

Re: Facebook React.js License

#120

Post by Flimm » Wed, Oct 12, 2016, 5:28 PM UTC

appleflaxen wrote: post #94

if a person offers two licenses, and you only need to accept one of them to be licensed, then you should be all set. If I sue facebook and they countersue, then my defense is simply "i am licensed under BSD". The fact that you offered an additional license (they even call it "additional") does not mean that I am required to accept it when the first license stands alone. Right?

Yes, but Facebook didn't dual-license this, they licensed it under a modified version of the BSD license. So it's that license or nothing. Edit: good point, gcp.