Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

issues.apache.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 391 posts

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

#311

Post by floatboth »

bhickey wrote: post #260
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.

> 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 Publ…

CC0, Unlicense etc. always contain fallbacks for jurisdictions without PD grants. That's the whole point of using them instead of just saying "public domain" and nothing more.

There's also the Zero-clause BSD License https://spdx.org/licenses/0BSD.html which is the same kind of thing except it does not even mention the words "public domain".

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

#312

Post by floatboth »

ergo14 wrote: post #178
Kiro wrote: post #164

Why would I care about patents if I'm outside the US? Software patents are not even valid where I live.

You work in vacuum?

In many many jurisdictions, software is not patentable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent#Jurisdictions

You usually can get patents for "software-related inventions" but there's no huge "software patents" problem in most other places like there is in the US.

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

#313

Post by Nomentatus »

khuey wrote: post #68
carussell wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As I understand it: To use React, you give Facebook permission to use any of your software patents throughout your whole company. That is, on its face, absolutely untrue. Nowhere in the React patent terms does it specify that you grant Facebook rights to use your patents--not even to ones related to React. That's something that isn't in the React terms, nor does it seem to show up in any legal analyses published on…

It maybe "on its face absolutely untrue" but it is true in practice. If Facebook infringes your patent and you sue them to enforce you lose the rights to use any patents React requires. So while you're not required to grant Facebook rights to use your patents, you are required not to enforce your rights relating to your patents against Facebook.

The fact that GPL licenses went for a patent grab (on hardware patents too) with an implicit patent grant paved the way for Facebook. It's just a very bad idea, unless you think all intellectual property should be swept into the dustbin of history, of course.

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

#314

Post by altotrees »

I worked or a large company on several web-based apps right around the time React came out. There were some UI issues I thought could be sorted easily using React.

After going to our lead dev, who in turn went to our project manager, we received an email from our legal department a few days later that simply stated we would not be using React due to "certain patent constraints."

Having not done any prior research, I looked into what the problem might be and was pretty floored with what I found. At first I scoffed when they said no, but after reading about the patent situation I totally get it.

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

#315

Post by CodeWriter23 »

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.

Hey now, the Artistic License is also one you can trust not to bite you in the ass.

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

#316

Post by CodeWriter23 »

discordianfish wrote: post #287
cyphar wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that unlike the Apache 2.0 or GPLv3 patent grants, the React license restricts you from suing Facebook for _any_ patent (even non-software patents). And note that that Facebook doesn't reciprocate that, and so if they decide to sue you for any alleged patent infringement then you cannot counter-sue for patent infringement they may be committing if you are using React. Also it makes you far weaker in ne…

In what way does it restrict you from suing Facebook? From what I can tell the patent grant is only beneficial to users of the software, not facebook. And it exists to address the concerns people might have that, if they use any facebook tech, they might risk getting sued. If you decide to sue, you're as good off as before. But if you don't sue, you can be sure facebook will never sue you either for violation of the…

> In what way does it restrict you from suing Facebook?

Economically, by losing the license to use React in your product once you serve them with papers. It's an implied gun to the head. Or poison pill, if you prefer.

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

#317

Post by sctb »

TokenDiversity wrote: post #202
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.

It's called PR and google has mastered that art. I dare them to open source gmail's spam filter. There are so few email solutions right now out there. They are basically a monopoly. They could use some competition. Feel free to downvote google fanboys :). You're no different from MS fans for 90s

Please don't violate the guidelines by rudely complaining about downvotes:

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#318

Post by bedros »

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…

I was downvoted like hell too when I commented that "only a fool will use react in their code because of its license"

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

#320

Post by ergo14 »

floatboth wrote: post #312
ergo14 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You work in vacuum?

In many many jurisdictions, software is not patentable https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent#Jurisdictions You usually can get patents for "software-related inventions" but there's no huge "software patents" problem in most other places like there is in the US.

I'm perfectly aware of that software patents are not enforceable in country I live in as far as I can tell. At same time I work with companies across the globe so I have to at least think at possible implications of licenses.
Post reply on HN