Thanks to David Recordon this has now been fixed and RocksDB is now dual licensed under Apache or GPL 2. The ball has been started to have the same change occur at React, which AFAIK is still under the old BSD+Patents license. Please click through the OP's link to get the current details.
Apache Foundation disallows use of the Facebook “BSD+Patent” license
361–370 of 391 posts
Re: Apache Foundation disallows use of the Facebook “BSD+Patent” license
#362Earlier quoted context omitted.
Off the top of my head big users of React include: * Apple (their entire dev docs site is built in it, and they've hosted Bay Area React user meet-ups) * Twitter (for their mobile web) * Microsoft (parts of Visual Studio use it) * Netflix (all over their frontend stack) ...as well as Dropbox, AirBnb, Venmo... So whilst I don't doubt you've discussed it with concerned counsel, there are huge corporations deploying Rea…
Big companies know they have the resources to devote to a code rewrite if it ever came to that. Small- to mid-size companies are the ones that have the greatest exposure. Also, it's my opinion that the companies like AirBNB who use it are not considering that it will complicate acquisition by another party. They are basically taking themselves out of contention for purchase by a company that is in direct competition…
Small to mid-size software companies mostly don't have patents. Naturally they aren't going to be too worried about problems that will only affect them if they are wildly successful. They are more worried about becoming successful in the first place than they are about optimizing their level of success in the unlikely event that they do become that successful.
Re: Apache Foundation disallows use of the Facebook “BSD+Patent” license
#363There is so much FUD around this PATENTS file.
If Facebook had not included this Patent grant and had released React under only the BSD license then any user would be in the exact situation which everyone is complaining so loudly about being in IF they decide to bring a patent action against Facebook. Specifically, you would be open to being sued by Facebook for violating a patent which they own.
What this grant says is for one specific circumstance (you haven't brought a patent suit against them) and for one specific limited set of patents (those related to React), Facebook will not sue you. If you like that protection then don't sue them. If you decide that you do want to bring a patent suit against them then you're right back where you were to begin with. Your one small limited protection is removed and Facebook can once again sue you if you violate one of their patents - just like they could before you started using React in the first place.
This business about it being asymmetrical is IMO a distraction. What would it mean for it to be symmetrical? That it would only trigger if you sue them for a patent violation related to React? What does that mean? You don't hold React patents, Facebook does. How would you sue them for a violation of a React patent? It makes no sense.
Re: Apache Foundation disallows use of the Facebook “BSD+Patent” license
#364Earlier quoted context omitted.
OK, can you name an example of that?
It's the whole point of patents. You want me to give you a list of patent lawsuits? :) Google is your friend.
I want an example of a case where a small software company successfully litigated a patent lawsuit against a huge company like Google, Microsoft, Facebook, etc. Preferably one where the instigator of the lawsuit was legitimately defending something novel and innovative. This is subjective, of course, and I tend to come down on the side of software not being something that should be patentable...but, it is patentable, so there are patents, so I'm asking: where are the lawsuits brought by small companies that are actually in the business they've patented and have sued a huge company?
You've made it sound like it happens all the time. I've been in the tech industry for two decades, and I can't think of any (though I'm sure they must exist). I assumed you had some cases in mind when you made the comment earlier, and I wondered what it was. I'm not demanding you go search for such a case. But, absent some sort of example, I'm gonna continue to assume it (almost) never happens.
Re: Apache Foundation disallows use of the Facebook “BSD+Patent” license
#365There is so much FUD around this PATENTS file. If Facebook had not included this Patent grant and had released React under only the BSD license then any user would be in the exact situation which everyone is complaining so loudly about being in IF they decide to bring a patent action against Facebook. Specifically, you would be open to being sued by Facebook for violating a patent which they own. What this grant says…
> "Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification,
are permitted provided that the following conditions are met"
We know this statement to be a lie. A deliberate falsehood. There are extra conditions by which you may use or distribute this software.
It was never open source.
Re: Apache Foundation disallows use of the Facebook “BSD+Patent” license
#366Earlier quoted context omitted.
What would a spam-resistant successor to today's email protocols look like? Is such a thing in the works by someone?
This is completely off topic from this thread, but one way to easily cut down on spam (that would break many email senders today) would be to require that a mail server can only send email for a domain you own. Yes, I'm familiar with DKIM and similar tools, but they don't go far enough.
Another way is to accept emails only from your contact list.
Re: Apache Foundation disallows use of the Facebook “BSD+Patent” license
#367Earlier quoted context omitted.
Facebook has reserved its rights with their license and they can decide to enforce it at any time. Personal projects should be ok, but commercial projects should involve a discussion with legal. If the company thinks it's possible that they end up in a lawsuit with FB, it won't be allowed. For those who get caught unawares, they will have to move off react if possible, or seriously consider settling.
For personal projects, my interest here is in whether or not the patents license is compatible with other free software licenses (say GPLV3). That might be a consideration for some people.
Section 11 might be incompatible with the facebook Patent+BSD license.
Re: Apache Foundation disallows use of the Facebook “BSD+Patent” license
#368Ok. With the BSD + patent grant Do you have a license to use Facebook's patents? Yes. Do you have a license to use Facebooks patents if Facebook brings a patent case against you? Yes. Do you have a license to use Facebooks patents if you bring a patent case against us? No. If you do not have a patent grant, can you still use React? YES! If you're going to down vote this, please say why. This is how I interpret the li…
No, you're quite right. The license to use React is governed by the BSD license, and it's not terminated if you end up suing Facebook over their violation of you VR patents or whatever. Edit: Downvoted for a factual answer? There's a host of sources confirming by answer as correct, including Facebook's official FAQ on React licensing[0]. Q: "Does termination of the additional patent grant in the Facebook BSD+Patents…
Patents cover "use".
Your license to use React is therefor not governed by the BSD license. It governed explicitly by the Facebook Patents+BSD license.
Re: Apache Foundation disallows use of the Facebook “BSD+Patent” license
#369In the discussion they say RocksDB will be relicensed under dual license Apache 2 and GPL 2. There's already an issue [0] asking them to consider doing something similar for react, and Dan Abramov said he'd route the request internally on the next work day. I can't imagine they'd keep the existing license without harming their community image. But even if they keep the license, many applications should be able to eas…
Then it will be relicened under "Apache 2+Patents" and "GPL 2+Patents"
All licenses to "use" and "distribute" this software are now contingent upon a patent. The copyright license is secondary to an overriding control and use and distribution via patent.
Re: Apache Foundation disallows use of the Facebook “BSD+Patent” license
#370Earlier 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.
What about MPL?