Nothing on GraphQL, right?
https://www.google.bg/amp/s/www.theregister.co.uk/AMP/2017/0...
Relicensing React, Jest, Flow, and Immutable.js
351–360 of 528 posts
Re: Relicensing React, Jest, Flow, and Immutable.js
#352Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well...now back to writing code and shipping things...we can all put our irrational fantasies of patent litigation and being "unacquirable" startups due to React to rest.
I love HN, and I hate to risk my account, but I'm tired of responses like this. You're being an asswipe. There is no reason for you to respond this way. The lens upon which you view the world must be pretty god damned shallow to make these kinds of statements. If you want to be a fuckstick and reply like this, please find another community.
If you love HN, you shouldn't be damaging it like this. Every time an established user behaves badly they give license (pun intended) to new users to degrade the site further. That's seriously not cool, regardless of how wrong some other commenter was.
The last way we want people to be defending HN, even against perceived assholes, is by being assholes themselves. Would it really have cost you to make your point substantively?
Re: Relicensing React, Jest, Flow, and Immutable.js
#353Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems like people never get tired of not reading the PATENTS file. “Wildly aggressive?” Please. The agreement explicitly forbids Facebook from revoking your patent grant if they are the aggressor. Without the agreement (i.e. just BSD) Facebook is free to sue you for patent infringement. They add a file that says they can’t do that unless you sue them first and suddenly people are out for blood. Salem 2.0.
Only over the React patents. They could, however, sue you over your VR system or something but leave you little recourse due to not wanting to lose your React/other FB patent grants.
Nope. The PATENTS file specifically says that if Facebook initiates patent litigation (related or unrelated to React) you can counter sue Facebook AND keep your React patent grant.
"...if Facebook or any of its subsidiaries or corporate affiliates files a lawsuit alleging patent infringement against you in the first instance, and you respond by filing a patent infringement counterclaim in that lawsuit against that party that is unrelated to the Software, the license granted hereunder will not terminate under section (i) of this paragraph due to such counterclaim."
Re: Relicensing React, Jest, Flow, and Immutable.js
#354Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm told that one reason companies might have chosen to avoid React was that they could have imagined themselves be in competition with Facebook at some point, and thereby in the danger zone with their old BSD licence.
They explicitly said in their FAQ that you could use React even in direct competition. None of this matters now, of course, because it's been relicensed. The only impact the patents license ever had on anyone was iff they initiated a patent lawsuit against Facebook.
Would the previous license have become relevant if Facebook initiated a patent lawsuit against you?
Even being on the back-foot when having to defend your patents, by refactoring React out of your application, was apparently damning enough for people to migrate.
Re: Relicensing React, Jest, Flow, and Immutable.js
#355That was incredibly unexpected. Facebook may very well end up in the majority's good graces with this move. I wonder how some of the bigger players will react (no pun intended) after their abandonment of React in lieu of Vue or some other framework. Interesting times indeed.
>Facebook may very well end up in the majority's good graces with this move. Really? They are doing the minimum possible to prevent an exodus from their stack after a public outcry.
This. FB is intentionally leaving a ton of their ecosystem with the PATENTS virus.
Theorizing, but I suspect FB will begin targeting and picking off IP of apps built entirely on React stacks in a few years.
Please don't go back to them. Just contribute to Vue's ecosystem like crazy. Worst case scenario it'll keep FB in check.
Re: Relicensing React, Jest, Flow, and Immutable.js
#356Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please tell me more about commercial sales of GPL software. How could I make sure that people pay me for using my desktop app if it was GPL?
A common misconception is that under GPL all your code must be released to the public. This is not true. You only have to give code to the user after purchase. Now, it's true that the user could then upload your software to the public (under gpl), but many of the issues surrounding that (such as lost sales #) aren't as bad as people imagine they are, and in the foss world are generally made up for by high-maintainenc…
Do you have an example of a commercially successful GPL desktop app?
Re: Relicensing React, Jest, Flow, and Immutable.js
#357So which FB project still have a BSD+patents license. I count: * ReasonML - https://github.com/facebook/reason/blob/master/PATENTS.txt * GraphQL - https://github.com/graphql/graphql-js/blob/master/PATENTS * react-native - https://github.com/facebook/react-native/blob/master/PATENTS * PlanOut - https://github.com/facebook/planout/blob/master/PATENTS * Flow - https://github.com/facebook/flow/blob/master/PATENTS * Haxl…
I've been trying to tell everyone licensing is more important than they realize, but there are so many people who fundamentally misunderstand licensing and therefor just don't care (dwtfyw license for example), or have falsely been trained by subpar instructors at uni and $othertraining about how bsd/mit is the superior license for business because $reasons. The four freedoms and free software solve so many of the pr…
>please take this time to at least consider GPL varients (A/L/GPLv3) for as much of your tooling as you possibly can. (perhaps CC0/CCBY/CCBYSA for content)
I'm sorry but Creative Commons themselves declare that their licensing should not be used for software.
https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-comm...
Re: Relicensing React, Jest, Flow, and Immutable.js
#358Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been trying to tell everyone licensing is more important than they realize, but there are so many people who fundamentally misunderstand licensing and therefor just don't care (dwtfyw license for example), or have falsely been trained by subpar instructors at uni and $othertraining about how bsd/mit is the superior license for business because $reasons. The four freedoms and free software solve so many of the pr…
>please take this time to at least consider GPL varients (A/L/GPLv3) for as much of your tooling as you possibly can. (perhaps CC0/CCBY/CCBYSA for content) I'm sorry but Creative Commons themselves declare that their licensing should not be used for software. https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-comm...
> (perhaps CC0/CCBY/CCBYSA for content)
content is not software
Re: Relicensing React, Jest, Flow, and Immutable.js
#359Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would Facebook sue for copyright infringement? Suing them for patent infringement doesn't invalidate the copyright - not for BSD+PATENTS, and certainly not for MIT. Your scenario doesn't make sense.
What exactly doesn’t make sense? What in the theoretical scenario do you not understand? Here is the scenario without the … emotional baggage: —— Company X has patent P . Company X releases open source O which provides implementation of patent P . There is no patent grant in the license of open source O . Company Y uses open source O . —— Can company X sue company Y for infringement of patent P ? I think the answer t…
What does this scenario have to do with "counter-suing" which you mentioned in your parent post?
WRT patent grants, there's a few tidbits here and there about implicit patent grants(https://copyleft.org/guide-next/comprehensive-gpl-guidech7.h... and http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Implicit_patent_licence) but hardly any settled case law. At any rate, this is the situation with every MIT license, so I don't know why it's ominous.
Re: Relicensing React, Jest, Flow, and Immutable.js
#360Earlier quoted context omitted.
>please take this time to at least consider GPL varients (A/L/GPLv3) for as much of your tooling as you possibly can. (perhaps CC0/CCBY/CCBYSA for content) I'm sorry but Creative Commons themselves declare that their licensing should not be used for software. https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-comm...
> (perhaps CC0/CCBY/CCBYSA for content ) content is not software
Yes, you're absolutely right. I missed that. Apologies.