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

Facebook React.js License

elcaminolegal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 203 posts

Re: Facebook React.js License

#131

Post by tracker1 »

gbuk2013 wrote: post #77
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 think you should read the article again. What it argues is that the licence essentially means that you can't initiate a lawsuit against FB for infringing one of your patents (which may have nothing to do with Reaft) without losing your React licence. Now whether that bothers you or not depends on your individual circumstances and the sanity of your particular legal jurisdiction, but it certainly would be something…

Given that software patents probably shouldn't even be allowed, I'm okay with this. Also, it's not THAT different from the fairly popular Apache License 2.0's patent provisions.

Re: Facebook React.js License

#132

Post by morgante »

stealthefocus wrote: post #130
morgante wrote: post #125

These conspiracy theories are really getting old. Do people really think Facebook developed and released React for the sole, or even primary purpose of gaining patent rights? It's preposterous that so many top engineers would be working on such a goal. It seems obvious that Facebook just has some overly cautious lawyers. I highly doubt that means Facebook is going to use your usage of React as an excuse to steal your…

Perhaps. But what if Oracle buys facebook or Zuckerberg steps down and a litigious CEO takes over. This is a major concern for lawyers in large companies.

I'm happy to recommend that everyone stop using React if Facebook ever sues someone for using React. But it remains a very unlikely possibility, especially since we don't even know if Facebook has React patents.

Re: Facebook React.js License

#133

Post by tracker1 »

ronjouch wrote: post #70
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…

> 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. Could you (or anyone confident in their legalese) elaborate on: * Does the Apache2 license indeed solve this? (I'm asking because I read about it in t…

Apache 2, iirc, has similar patent provisions where you lose patent protection if you bring suit to any contributors.

Re: Facebook React.js License

#134

Post by tracker1 »

jsprogrammer wrote: post #73
the_duke wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have some examples? The MIT license is problematic with software patents. I see some projects moving to Apache2 for that reason (one prominent example here is Rust. They moved to an MIT/Apache2 dual licensing model).

What is the problem with the MIT license and patents? The MIT license grants explicit rights to deal in the software without restriction.

A copyright license is not necessarily the same as a patent grant... Apache 2 does contain a patent grant, and an even bigger nuclear deterrent similar to Facebook's separate grant with MIT.

Re: Facebook React.js License

#135

Post by ergo14 »

timup wrote: post #127
ergo14 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just use Polymer, vue or something else without that problem :-)

Polymer has nearly the same provision. They're sneaky about it as it doesn't appear in the main license. http://polymer.github.io/PATENTS.txt

Not at all:

"If you or your agent or exclusive licensee institute or order or agree to the institution of patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that this implementation of Polymer or any code incorporated within this implementation of Polymer constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, or inducement of patent infringement, then any patent rights granted to you under this License for this implementation of Polymer shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed."

I dont see how is that similar to react. It makes way more sense and is closer in spirit to apache I think.

Re: Facebook React.js License

#136

Post by tracker1 »

bwhitty wrote: post #83
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

Is there any talk within Facebook on amending this clause or moving React to a standard license? I believe it's stopping a lot of large companies (whom the patent clause could actually affect) from using React, and all other like-licensed Facebook software.

Then it should stop you from using software from EVERY large company... many choose Apache 2, which has similar provisions which include revoking your copyright license... MS and Google both include similar provisions in most of their permissively licensed software tools/libraries.

Re: Facebook React.js License

#137

Post by gbuk2013 »

tracker1 wrote: post #131
gbuk2013 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you should read the article again. What it argues is that the licence essentially means that you can't initiate a lawsuit against FB for infringing one of your patents (which may have nothing to do with Reaft) without losing your React licence. Now whether that bothers you or not depends on your individual circumstances and the sanity of your particular legal jurisdiction, but it certainly would be something…

Given that software patents probably shouldn't even be allowed, I'm okay with this. Also, it's not THAT different from the fairly popular Apache License 2.0's patent provisions.

Sorry but I think you are quite mistaken regarding Apache 2.0 - that termination clause is only triggered by patent claims relating to the "work" (i.e. the derivative software) whereas the React licence appears to cover any claims made against FB. It is a big difference!

I agree that software patents should not be allowed and am fortunate to live in a mostly sane jurisdiction where they are mostly not allowed but that's not the case for everyone.

Re: Facebook React.js License

#138

Post by ryanswapp »

So, assuming you actually have a patent, and Facebook actually decides to infringe on that patent, the worst case scenario is that you lose your license to use React. There are principles of fairness and equity in the law that would allow you to stop using React in a reasonable amount of time. So write your frontend in Elm. It probably needed a rewrite anyways.

Re: Facebook React.js License

#139

Post by hatsix »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #122
ergo14 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just use Polymer, vue or something else without that problem :-)

Facebook patents that apply to React will also very likely also apply to Vue or any other virtual DOM library. Using Vue makes you more vulnerable, not less, since you no longer have the protection of the React.js patent grant.

You made this assertion before, but it's wrong and dangerous. Without knowing what the patents are, you cannot possibly say whether or not OTHER technology is infringing on it. It is especially bad considering you are not a lawyer, nor have professed any familiarity with the patent process.

It is a moderate, but known, amount of work to look through FB's patents, assess which are likely around React, and read through the claims. Considering it's possible, I certainly think that it's reasonable to ask you to do the work, or stop making the assertions.

Re: Facebook React.js License

#140

Post by tracker1 »

appleflaxen wrote: post #106
guelo wrote: post #100

To me it's the GPL of patents; it's a viral anti-patent license. Once you use React you must disarm in the destructive patent wars. I wish more popular software were released with it.

it's not really viral... the viral aspect of GPL is that any derived work you distribute would automatically have to be open. in the case of the patents, they're not really used to create a derived work. As a result, there is no "infection".

I liken it to a mutually assured destruction aka nuclear deterrent. Which is a pretty close fit. As someone who is opposed to software patents in general, I'm okay with this.
Post reply on HN