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

151–160 of 203 posts

Re: Facebook React.js License

#151

Post by bryanlarsen »

hatsix wrote: post #139
bryanlarsen wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

But I have been told, by lawyers, never to read patents, because that could triple damages for knowledgeable infringement.

It also doesn't address potential patents that are still within the 18 month filing window and are still secret.

Re: Facebook React.js License

#152

Post by morgante »

EdwardMSmith wrote: post #150
pkozlowski_os wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. After you've spent 10+ man/years developing an app based on React / other lib with similar restriction. "stop using React" is fine advise for small projects that can be rewritten in few months by few people. For very large projects the cost of stop using / rewrite could be huge.

But utterly dwarfed by the cost of an offensive patent infringement lawsuit against a $300+ Billion company.

Exactly. If you're actually in a legal dispute with Facebook, the cost of rewriting your frontend to not use React is minimal.

It's not like React is a massive library with a huge surface area. Even a fairly complex application could be migrated to an alternative like Vue.js if the need arose.

Re: Facebook React.js License

#153

Post by timup »

ergo14 wrote: post #135
timup wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 righ…

Yes 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."

Re: Facebook React.js License

#154

Post by bdcravens »

morgante wrote: post #152
EdwardMSmith wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But utterly dwarfed by the cost of an offensive patent infringement lawsuit against a $300+ Billion company.

Exactly. If you're actually in a legal dispute with Facebook, the cost of rewriting your frontend to not use React is minimal. It's not like React is a massive library with a huge surface area. Even a fairly complex application could be migrated to an alternative like Vue.js if the need arose.

> the cost of rewriting your frontend to not use React is minimal

Or a non-issue if you choose a framework that you feel has safer licensing.

Re: Facebook React.js License

#155

Post by quadrangle »

brlewis wrote: post #141
tracker1 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Who said anything about software? Facebook or one of its affiliates could infringe a hardware invention and suing them for it would have the exact same implications.

Patents shouldn't exist, period. Okay? Now the assertion is consistent. (Note: I'm not the earlier poster)

Re: Facebook React.js License

#156

Post by DannyBee »

"A. The Additional Grant of Patent Rights in Unnecessary."

This is legally incorrect.

". But I’ve never heard any lawyer postulate that that document does not grant a license to fully exploit the licensed software under all of the licensor’s intellectual property. Anyone who pushes that view is thinking too hard."

Nobody has pushed this view.

However, the author seems to miss that such rights are likely not sublicensable, because they are implied, and implied rights are pretty much never sublicensable.

That is, i may have gotten the rights. That does not mean i can give someone else the same rights.

Now, there are other possible principles, such as exhaustion, that may take care of this (it's a grey area)

But it's definitely not the case that implied patent rights are somehow going to be better than an explicit grant.

They are for people using software. They are not for people distributing software.

Re: Facebook React.js License

#157

Post by DannyBee »

philipodonnell wrote: post #145
tracker1 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Important caveat as I understand it from other comments: Apache 2 is limited only to suits about derivative works under that specific license. Facebook's is much broader because you lose patent protection if you bring suit against Facebook about anything, even patents with nothing to do with React, like hardware, and even if Facebook is intentionally violating one of your patents.

This is correct. In apache2 you only lose the right to that work, and only the patent rights, not copyright rights. So in a work with no patents, i can sue you as much as i want without fear :P

Re: Facebook React.js License

#158

Post by DannyBee »

mjg59 wrote: post #23

Version 2 of the Apple Public Source License includes the following termination clause: 12.1 Termination. This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate: … (c) automatically without notice from Apple if You, at any time during the term of this License, commence an action for patent infringement against Apple; provided that Apple did not first commence an action for patent infringement against You in tha…

This sort of license is definitely open source (and common, in fact), it's just not gpl2 compatible, which is the current reason most licenses avoid it

Basically: Any attempt to terminate both copyright and patent rights will be gplv2 incompatible Attempts to terminate patent rights, written in the right way, will be compatible.

Re: Facebook React.js License

#159

Post by bdcravens »

the_duke wrote: post #64

While we are on the subject: I constantly find the need to read up on licensing. Usually with various blog posts or online information, which never gives me the feeling that I fully understood the legal implications or the context. Can anyone recommend a book covering software licenses in depth? (ideally not only US centric)

With a new package manager every year, a new framework every six months, and a new build system every month, who has time for that? Just trust the masses: whatever frameworks and libraries have the most stickers on Macbooks has proven its veracity. /s

Re: Facebook React.js License

#160

Post by DannyBee »

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"

The same reason Google has BSD + additional rights grants (though not as restrictive):

We deliberately want people to not be able to sue us for patent infringement without us being able to defend ourselves.

One can argue that facebook's method may be harsher than necessary (our rights grant is pretty much a copy of apache's 2), but i think people do not realize how often google/facebook/etc is getting sued for patent infringement.

Given how popular the software is, it deters people who are not NPE's.

Post reply on HN