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

161–170 of 203 posts

Re: Facebook React.js License

#161

Post by bdcravens »

bad_user wrote: post #52
mi100hael wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's a great illustration of the difference between "open source" and "free software." In this case the source is still openly published, but under certain circumstances you're no longer free to redistribute.

Personally I think it's a great illustration that even software developers lack reading skills. Open Source means this, no more, no less: https://opensource.org/osd-annotated

I think it's more of an illustration that for better or worse, most software developers just want to hack, and are willfully ignorant of what they consider peripheral concerns.

Re: Facebook React.js License

#162

Post by DannyBee »

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…

"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. "

Having met with their legal and open source departments and talked about this before, i can pretty much say "they have a reasonable set of problems, and are trying to do a reasonable set of things about it".

One can argue they don't need to be this harsh about it, etc. But that's about risk tolerance, not about trying to gain more rights.

Re: Facebook React.js License

#163

Post by ergo14 »

timup wrote: post #153
ergo14 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 righ…

Read that text again... especially this part:

"against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that THIS IMPLEMENTATION OF POLYMER or OR ANY CODE INCORPORATED WITHIN this implementation of Polymer".

I know I ask much of you but you can do it. BTW. congratulations on copy pasting the text I pasted above...

Re: Facebook React.js License

#164

Post by DannyBee »

gcp wrote: post #123
Flimm wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You misunderstood. He says "I'll take this": https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/LICENSE which by admission of the blog post this is about, already includes an implicit patent grant on React. And he'll pass on this: https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/PATENTS Which is marked as "additional".

This is a reasonable argument, given the headers says " * This source code is licensed under the BSD-style license found in the * LICENSE file in the root directory of this source tree. An additional grant * of patent rights can be found in the PATENTS file in the same directory. *"

However, the problem you have here is there literally can be no implied license when an explicit one is offered. You can't say "i take the bsd and implied patent license".

So if you want to take it without the additional rights grant, you can. But you won't get patent rights, because they have offered them to you explicitly under a different license.

Re: Facebook React.js License

#165

Post by hatsix »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #151
hatsix wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Then don't make the assertion.

Re: Facebook React.js License

#166

Post by mickronome »

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…

The problem the article points out is that it is not 'what if they sue us on a patent claim regarding this piece of software' that is the problem.

The problem is that if you would bring _any_ patent claim against Facebook or any of its affiliates, the license terminates at that moment.

This is obviously not a problem for everyone, but a problem no less. Using software licenses to gain additional - and completely unrelated - rights is really not something I would like to see become a trend. It sounds like going back to the dark ages, feudalism and all.

Give the bullies free reign, and they will take your money and beat you up. In this case you would also have to take off your underpants and sew yourself a new pair before you can even try to fight back.

Re: Facebook React.js License

#167

Post by djsumdog »

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…

It wouldn't matter in a place like New Zealand. Software patents are banned there.

Re: Facebook React.js License

#168

Post by mickronome »

timup wrote: post #153
ergo14 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 righ…

Polymer license only concerns itself with itself. FB license concerns all patents you and FB might have in addition to patents/righs concerning the react code itself.

There is a big difference, although it might not look like that.

Re: Facebook React.js License

#169

Post by bflesch »

mickronome wrote: post #166
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…

The problem the article points out is that it is not 'what if they sue us on a patent claim regarding this piece of software' that is the problem. The problem is that if you would bring _any_ patent claim against Facebook or any of its affiliates, the license terminates at that moment. This is obviously not a problem for everyone, but a problem no less. Using software licenses to gain additional - and completely unre…

I think that if you have the patents to actually have a case against Facebook and decide to sue them, then it is totally reasonable for them to not give you stuff for free any longer.

Not sure how that is not fair, even more for large players who can objectively decide if it is worth it or not.

Re: Facebook React.js License

#170

Post by jsprogrammer »

tracker1 wrote: post #134
jsprogrammer wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The MIT license is not a copyright license (though, copyright is claimed). It is a license for unrestricted dealings in the software subject to certain conditions (no warranty or fitness, appropriate notices given, etc.).
Post reply on HN