I am no pro in understanding these licensing issue. Can someone help me how this affects if
i) ReactJS is used in a company/organisation for their proprietor software?
ii) ReactJS is used in a company/organisation for their distributed licensing software?
iii) ReactJS is used in a company/organisation for a software which is opensourced?
Explaining React's license
191–200 of 622 posts
Re: Explaining React's license
#192So, i feel for them, having watched Google's open source projects be targeted by patent trolls in the past. But i really don't think this is the way forward. A few things: 1. If you want to suggest you are doing this as part of an attempt to avoid meritless litigation, you really should give concrete examples of that happening. Otherwise, it comes off as a smoke screen. 2. The assertion is that if widely adopted, it…
To your second point, wouldn't there be a tremendous amount of startups who aren't interested in being in the patents business, or that would otherwise not own the patents over which to sue Facebook, that would thus not be able to get into this position, or did I just completely misunderstand the issue?
Re: Explaining React's license
#193Earlier quoted context omitted.
> how Facebook would feel if all the open source software they currently use incorporated the same license That would work incredibly well to neutralize patents, actually, and would be a huge win for free/open source software. It's surprising not to have seen anyone point out the logical conclusion of a world where every major license includes a React-like stance on patents: it's a world where no one is able to bring…
So this opinion almost swayed me, but the problem is that companies aren't scared of open source writers suing them. If you use project A that was written by one or two developers in their spare time (and they included a BSD+patents) clause, would Facebook fear being sued by them? Probably not -- but new companies that get anywhere close to what Facebook does (increasingly, that's everything these days) definitely li…
I agree this is hypothetical, but an organization could form for enforcing the license.
Re: Explaining React's license
#194> like some other large companies do and only release software that isn't used in our most successful products
Closure Compiler [1], GWT [2], and protobufs [3] would like to have a word...
I realize they said "some" large companies, but it seems like there's plenty of precedent for successful tech companies to release core infrastructure as open source.
[1] https://developers.google.com/closure/compiler/
Re: Explaining React's license
#195Earlier quoted context omitted.
If React really is covered by patents Facebook has then Preact is likely infringing on them since it does the same things in similar ways. And Preact doesn't come with a patent grant from Facebook at all.
We learned from Java and Google that you can't patent and API. It's not forked from React it's an alternative.
The Google/Java case was about copyrights, not patents, and Google actually lost on that issue.
They won on a fair use claim. And that win is still subject to an ongoing appeal.
Re: Explaining React's license
#196Re: Explaining React's license
#197I think the reasoning that this will protect them against frivolous lawsuits is pretty poor; you only need a patent grant if you're actually building software. Patent trolls don't build anything so they have no need for patent grants.
Facebook most likely is guarding it for strategic reason. My guess is it will built something like Expo into its Facebook/Messenger app, then it can have its own native app, games store without going through Apple. This is something WeChat already is running called mini-apps.
Re: Explaining React's license
#198Earlier quoted context omitted.
> how Facebook would feel if all the open source software they currently use incorporated the same license That would work incredibly well to neutralize patents, actually, and would be a huge win for free/open source software. It's surprising not to have seen anyone point out the logical conclusion of a world where every major license includes a React-like stance on patents: it's a world where no one is able to bring…
If mutually assured destruction is your definition of peace... But what prevents everyone from becoming patent infringers in this scenario?
I guess the point is in this hypothetical world patents are useless because suing would trigger the destruction and this is good because the community can freely share and use the best designs.
However, in such a world I don't think the courts would approve of this 'hack' and kill the enforceability of these clauses precisely because they render patents useless.
Re: Explaining React's license
#199Anyone knows what are consequences of ban from Apache Software Foundation? Okay, it has X-Cat exclusion by August, 31 ( https://react-etc.net/entry/apache-foundation-bans-use-of-fa... ) and what will happen after that?
https://www.apache.org/legal/resolved.html
"Can Apache projects distribute components under prohibited licenses?
Apache projects cannot distribute any such components. This means that no source code can be from Category X and that any convenience binaries produced may not include such contents. As with the previous question on platforms, the component can be relied on if the component's license terms do not affect the Apache product's licensing. For example, using a GPL'ed tool during the build is OK, however including GPL'ed source code is not"
Re: Explaining React's license
#200Just as a thought experiment if every piece of software had a similar clause in their license it would mark the end of software patents. Isn't this what we actually want more of? Isn't _that_ actually the moral high ground?