Facebook React.js License

Post by nixos » Thu, Oct 13, 2016, 3:59 AM UTC

ignasl wrote: post #177

erichocean wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The way I read it, it's not evil. No, it's evil, full stop. Facebook's patent policy means, in no uncertain terms: if you have a patent, they have a worldwide, royalty-free right to use it. Don't want to give them that? Well, until you remove all usage of Facebook's "open source" code, that's the situation. Note: RocksDB also has this problem, which means CockroachDB is also infected. Tread carefully. ----- Note to…

> Good luck suing Facebook for patent-infringement Protecting from patent lawsuits is not evil as SW patents are bullish anyway. No one except maybe some patent trolls or some other big companies will sue Facebook for patent infrigment and if they do then this is a pretty clever defence. If you really really have something really really unique invented (which is really really unlikely) then just don't use anything by…

Post by Lazare » Thu, Oct 13, 2016, 4:41 AM UTC

ryanswapp wrote: post #138

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.

Post by ec109685 » Thu, Oct 13, 2016, 5:50 AM UTC

erichocean wrote: post #172

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 way I read it, it's not evil. No, it's evil, full stop. Facebook's patent policy means, in no uncertain terms: if you have a patent, they have a worldwide, royalty-free right to use it. Don't want to give them that? Well, until you remove all usage of Facebook's "open source" code, that's the situation. Note: RocksDB also has this problem, which means CockroachDB is also infected. Tread carefully. ----- Note to…

Post by gcp » Thu, Oct 13, 2016, 2:32 PM UTC

madeofpalk wrote: post #180

gcp wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) Yes, and that's exactly the problem raised here. 2) The patent grants from Microsoft and Google grant a license on software (or a standard), and only give them a (reciprocal) license on the software or standard that is under consideration. If Microsoft had published React, you could still sue them for violating patents that are unrelated to React without losing your license to use it. The Facebook grant doesn't ha…

2) If Microsoft published React without a patent rider, and Microsoft had patents on the tech in React, then you would be in violation in the first place, right? Microsoft can still you sue for violating their React patents, especially if you sue them first.

Post by tracker1 » Thu, Oct 13, 2016, 9:44 PM UTC

brlewis wrote: post #144

tracker1 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I'm opposed to software patents... that said, there's no safety from any third party wrt patents either.

I think there exist fields of invention where it's reasonable for inventors to know what's in the patent database and thus avoid unintentional infringement. Obviously software isn't one of those fields.