251–260 of 528 posts
BSD+Patents would terminate its patent grants if ever yourself and Facebook entered litigation. Implying Facebook would add a patent suit to their defense/offense.
Now they STILL get too! Buuut they look like a good guys. MIT says nothing about Patents. So they can sue _anyone_ using React for patent violations now.
— —
People should keep the pressure up until they license under Apache2. Then the patent issue is solved.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the first time I've seen "put your head in the sand" as an actual recommendation, instead of being characterized as something not to do. And as far as recommendations go, it's more than a little bit nutty.
It's actually a common policy when it comes to patents. If you are found to infringe on a patent and it can be shown that you knew about it, the penalties are much harsher. This is one of the many reasons people consider the patent system to be badly broken.
Thank you, Wordpress.[1] [1] https://ma.tt/2017/09/on-react-and-wordpress/
Though I am a bit curious about why WordPress would need React in the first place. It's not like they're building a real-time app. Am I missing something here?
https://wptavern.com/wordpress-new-gutenberg-editor-now-avai...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if they infringe on one of my patents Well, the implicit assumption behind FB's bsd+patents license is that you should be ok with anyone "infringing" on your software patents, since software patents are mostly bullshit and you only acquired them to be used in defense (i. e. never suing someone first). That license doesn't make any sense if you believe otherwise.
Well, the React PATENTS file seems to indicate that you would lose the patent grant for any patent assertion against Facebook,[1] not just for software patent assertions against Facebook. So, it's theoretically possible that the poster in the parent comment was concerned about a patent on something other than software. Maybe he or she has patented some type of VR headset, for example, and uses React VR for the softwa…
Since i'm not a lawyer, I have questions... The patents grant was irrevocable except under explicitly described conditions. A license change wasn't one of these conditions. So: 1) Does the patent grant still apply? i.e. is it now MIT + Patents? 2) If yes/no, what about existing users of React? i.e. if you were a user up to the point of the license change, do you get the grant, but new users don't? 3) Doesn't not havi…
React 16 will be licensed under MIT. Previous versions of React which you may be using under BSD+patents will remain licensed under BSD+patents. If you upgrade to 16, you should be free and clear of the patents clause. Definitely not PR theater. (IANAL, but this is how relicensing works basically universally)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From https://code.facebook.com/posts/112130496157735/explaining-r... > As our business has become successful, we've become a larger target for meritless patent litigation. This type of litigation can be extremely costly in terms of both resources and attention. It would have been easy for us to stop contributing to open source, or to do what some other large companies do and only release software that isn't used in o…
Can somebody who speaks legalese translate Red Hat's Patent Promise into more parseable English? I'm curious how it works, but the wording is pretty obscure to me.
If I read this right, Red Hat promises to not sue anyone for using/transferring FOSS whether or not such an action infringes on Red Hat's patents - they will only use patents to defend against litigation. (IANAL.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From https://code.facebook.com/posts/112130496157735/explaining-r... > As our business has become successful, we've become a larger target for meritless patent litigation. This type of litigation can be extremely costly in terms of both resources and attention. It would have been easy for us to stop contributing to open source, or to do what some other large companies do and only release software that isn't used in o…
Can somebody who speaks legalese translate Red Hat's Patent Promise into more parseable English? I'm curious how it works, but the wording is pretty obscure to me.
The "combined" part seems to be saying you can also develop a system that's partly proprietary, as long as the proprietary parts are simple and not using Red Hat's patents.
If they sell a patent, the buyer must agree to the same promise.
The promise won't protect you if you infringe someone else's IP, even if it's related to one of Red Hat's patents.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From https://code.facebook.com/posts/112130496157735/explaining-r... > As our business has become successful, we've become a larger target for meritless patent litigation. This type of litigation can be extremely costly in terms of both resources and attention. It would have been easy for us to stop contributing to open source, or to do what some other large companies do and only release software that isn't used in o…
Can somebody who speaks legalese translate Red Hat's Patent Promise into more parseable English? I'm curious how it works, but the wording is pretty obscure to me.
Red Hat holds patents but promises not to enforce them. This means anyone can use the IP without worrying about being sued for infringement. No one else can claim they own the IP because Red Hat already owns it. They also have a clause saying that if Red Hat sells the IP, the buyer needs to uphold the same promise.
Thank you, Wordpress.[1] [1] https://ma.tt/2017/09/on-react-and-wordpress/
Sorry, I'm confused, can you help me understand that blog post? I'm getting three messages from it: 1. We like React a lot with or without the license. 2. It's not our job to convince the world React's patent license is fine. 3. We're substantially moving away from React, including large rewrites. ...why are they moving away from React? I'm confused, do they believe using React implicitly supports it? They're already…