Apache Foundation disallows use of the Facebook “BSD+Patent” license • Hacker News Board

Re: Apache Foundation disallows use of the Facebook “BSD+Patent” license

#251

Post by SwellJoe » Sun, Jul 16, 2017, 1:30 PM UTC

blazespin wrote: post #82

rdtsc wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They’ve built their entire business on the back of open source software that wasn’t ever encumbered with the sort of nonsense they’ve attached to their own projects. So did Amazon apparently and others. At least Google have open sourced many interesting and useful projects so they have given back. Microsoft have been open sourcing things lately too. Others so so.

The problem is that a critical protection against large companies is via patents or at least the threat of. Without them, the ability to dethrone them becomes very limited.

Can you name an example of when a patent was used by a small company in the software industry to "dethrone" a very large company?

I'm having a hard time coming up with any examples; the lawsuits that come to mind are patent trolls, where the "little" company is a non-practicing entity so they can't be counter-sued for violating the giant's portfolio of patents. But, you sound pretty certain, so I want to figure out where I'm wrong.

Re: Apache Foundation disallows use of the Facebook “BSD+Patent” license

#252

Post by brianwawok » Sun, Jul 16, 2017, 1:32 PM UTC

pmlnr wrote: post #227

snarfy wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, I didn't read the fine print. I've been having fun playing around with it. I assumed the license was OK considering its popularity.

"I assumed the license was OK considering its popularity." Always check the licence. Public domain, MIT, simple, plain BSD, GPL (any version), apache - if it's anything else, be extremely cautious.

As AGPL still on most proples danger list? Or did you not include it in your GPL any version list.

Re: Apache Foundation disallows use of the Facebook “BSD+Patent” license

#253

Post by hocuspocus » Sun, Jul 16, 2017, 1:40 PM UTC

maxsavin wrote: post #187

And now, for a tinfoil hat moment: even though companies like Microsoft and Google are using Facebook's libraries, it is possible that they have some kind of private deal in regards to the patents clause.

I work at a fairly big company that has a good relationship with Facebook (they're a customer and partner) and we aren't allowed to use React or zstd.

But MS and Google are big fish relative to Facebook, private deal or not.

Re: Apache Foundation disallows use of the Facebook “BSD+Patent” license

#254

Post by charleslmunger » Sun, Jul 16, 2017, 1:44 PM UTC

colejohnson66 wrote: post #116

Xeoncross wrote: post #3

> Does the additional patent grant in the Facebook BSD+Patents license terminate if I create a competing product? > No. > Does the additional patent grant in the Facebook BSD+Patents license terminate if I sue Facebook for something other than patent infringement? > No. https://code.facebook.com/pages/850928938376556 Consider re-licensing to AL v2.0: https://github.com/facebook/react/issues/10191

> The license granted hereunder will terminate, automatically and without notice, if you (or any of your subsidiaries, corporate affiliates or agents) initiate directly or indirectly, or take a direct financial interest in, any Patent Assertion: (i) against Facebook or any of its subsidiaries or corporate affiliates, (ii) against any party if such Patent Assertion arises in whole or in part from any software, technol…

>Facebook or any of its subsidiaries or corporate affiliates files a lawsuit

And then

>against that party

IANAL, but does that mean that if Facebook proper transfers a patent to a new subsidiary (wholly owned patent troll) they can sue you, and the only patent counterclaim you can make without terminating your ready license is against the troll subsidiary, not Facebook proper?

Re: Apache Foundation disallows use of the Facebook “BSD+Patent” license

#255

Post by halomru » Sun, Jul 16, 2017, 1:45 PM UTC

captainmuon wrote: post #151

I think this is an overreaction (pun accidental). There are two things here: The copyright license, and the patent grant. Copyright applies to the concrete implementation. You have to agree to the license to be subject to it, and to legally use the code. A potential patent applies to any implementation. Even if you write a clean-room clone of React, if it uses the same patent, Facebook has a patent claim. But that me…

>A potential patent applies to any implementation. Even if you write a clean-room clone of React, if it uses the same patent, Facebook has a patent claim.

Sure, but that only rules out a reimplementation of React. The question most people face is "React or existing alternative X?". If your chosen alternative is still actively developed, it's probably notably different from React in concept and implementation (why else would it still exist).

Now if Facebook owns any react-related patents, you use all of them by using react, your alternative has a good chance to be sufficiently different to not be infringing.

In terms of your chances of using Facebook patents, any alternative is strictly better than React itself.

Re: Apache Foundation disallows use of the Facebook “BSD+Patent” license

#256

Post by halomru » Sun, Jul 16, 2017, 1:52 PM UTC

brianwawok wrote: post #252

pmlnr wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I assumed the license was OK considering its popularity." Always check the licence. Public domain, MIT, simple, plain BSD, GPL (any version), apache - if it's anything else, be extremely cautious.

As AGPL still on most proples danger list? Or did you not include it in your GPL any version list.

I can't speak for corporate lawyers, but I treat AGPL v3 similar to GPL v3 (a bit truer to the GPL spirit, but in consequence a bit stricter).

Then again, GPL v3 is on many people's danger list

Re: Apache Foundation disallows use of the Facebook “BSD+Patent” license

#257

Post by dchest » Sun, Jul 16, 2017, 1:54 PM UTC

thrillgore wrote: post #242

dchest wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is incorrect. Here's the full text of BSD license: Copyright (c) 2011 The LevelDB Authors. All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. * Redistributions in binary form…

There is a similar clause in the MIT License, which is even weaker than the BSD License.

MIT license includes the right to sublicense, however the terms of sublicensing is retaining the original copyright and permission notices, so you'll still have to retain the large portion of the MIT license text.

Re: Apache Foundation disallows use of the Facebook “BSD+Patent” license

#258

Post by shp0ngle » Sun, Jul 16, 2017, 1:58 PM UTC

numair wrote: post #18

Finally, people are beginning to realize the insanity of this entire PATENTS file situation! When I first brought up how misguided people were for embracing React and projects with this license, I was downvoted to hell on HN. But really, everyone, THINK ABOUT IT. This is a company that glorifies and celebrates IP theft from others, and lionizes their employees who successfully clone others’ projects. They’ve built th…

If my company don't ever plan to sue Facebook for patents, is not involved with patents, doesn't care about patents and everyone leading the company thinks patents are bullshit, why should I worry?

Re: Apache Foundation disallows use of the Facebook “BSD+Patent” license

#259

Post by clarkevans » Sun, Jul 16, 2017, 2:01 PM UTC

I'm not a lawyer, but perhaps Facebook's BSD+Patent license is not even open source.

It's tempting to consider the BSD license independent of the additional patent license. However, the OSI has not approved CC0 as being open source precisely because it expressly reserves patent rights [0]. In the OSI's justification, permissive MIT and BSD licenses may provide implicit patent license, so by themselves they are open source. However, like CC0, BSD+Patents expressly exclude this possibility. Indeed, Facebook's licensing FAQ deems the combined work of the BSD+patents to be the license [1]. Further, recent court case has shown that these licenses are not simply copyright or patent statements, but can be actual contracts [2].

Hence, we have to consider the BSD text + the patents file text as the combined license. This license is not symmetric and hence may violate OSI license standards. I've made this comment in the facebook bug report, https://github.com/facebook/react/issues/10191

[0] https://opensource.org/faq#cc-zero [1] https://code.facebook.com/pages/850928938376556 [2] https://perens.com/blog/2017/05/28/understanding-the-gpl-is-...

Re: Apache Foundation disallows use of the Facebook “BSD+Patent” license

#260

Post by bhickey » Sun, Jul 16, 2017, 2:08 PM UTC

pmlnr wrote: post #227

snarfy wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, I didn't read the fine print. I've been having fun playing around with it. I assumed the license was OK considering its popularity.

"I assumed the license was OK considering its popularity." Always check the licence. Public domain, MIT, simple, plain BSD, GPL (any version), apache - if it's anything else, be extremely cautious.

> Public domain

There are jurisdictions that don't recognize PD grants. I can't think of a good reason to use CC0 over MIT or BSD.

> GPL (any version)

This might be doctrinaire but I won't use the (L)GPLv3 because of the AGPL linking clause:

> Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have permission to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed under version 3 of the GNU Affero General Public License into a single combined work, and to convey the resulting work. The terms of this License will continue to apply to the part which is the covered work, but the special requirements of the GNU Affero General Public License, section 13, concerning interaction through a network will apply to the combination as such.