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

Relicensing React, Jest, Flow, and Immutable.js

code.facebook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 528 posts

Re: Relicensing React, Jest, Flow, and Immutable.js

#391

Post by kelnos »

SwellJoe wrote: post #93
kelnos wrote: post #71

So... I guess I still don't understand what was wrong with BSD+Patents. I get that there's legal uncertainty: I can imagine some companies, especially larger ones, not wanting to give up their patent-suit option just because one random small team in their org is using React. And barriers to adoption aren't a great idea when one of your goals is wide adoption. Overall, though, I think making it much harder to file pat…

I think it's more about the complexity of licensing, patents, and the uncertainty a new license presents. Using a license that's been in use for a long time, and has the endorsement of major OSS organizations, is pretty much always more comfortable for developers. I wasn't uncomfortable enough with their licenses to rule out their projects based on the license, but I understand the folks who were. Even if my reading…

By that logic we'd never have any new licenses, because everyone would be afraid to use them. We take it on faith now that whenever a new release of the GPL comes out, we won't be afraid of it just because it's new. People had problems with GPLv3 when it came out, but those problems were about specific parts of the license, not "oh god it's new and scary and we don't know how to interpret it". And that's the GPL, a license orders of magnitude more complex than BSD+Patents.

As an aside, I realized I read FB's license wrong -- it actually is even better for users of it, and specifically says that the patent termination clause only goes into effect if the user is the aggressor. If FB comes after you for a patent claim, you can counter-sue all you want without losing your license. So FB is actually doing the absolutely correct thing here.

Re: Relicensing React, Jest, Flow, and Immutable.js

#392

Post by kelnos »

spenczar5 wrote: post #148
guelo wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unethical developers that work at shitty companies with shitty lawyers were annoyed that they couldn't use React. That's all there is to it. I loved BSD+patent as one of the few potentially successful attacks on the awful software patents regime that we currently live under. This defeat means we are probably stuck with it for the rest of our careers.

I think you have it backwards. The facebook patent license puts all the power in their hands, and none in yours: they can still sue you for violating their patents, but you can't sue them . It would be a much, much worse patent regime.

No they can't, actually. The language in BSD+Patents only terminates your license to use the software if you are the aggressor in a patent suit. If you simply counter-sue because FB sued you, you're in the clear.

Re: Relicensing React, Jest, Flow, and Immutable.js

#394

Post by kelnos »

eridius wrote: post #174
guelo wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If BSD+patent was widely adopted it could disarm all sides equally.

No, it only puts power in the hands of the big players. It might mean the big players can't sue each other, but they can absolutely sue the smaller companies. BSD + Patents only "disarms" anyone who's actually using the licensed software, and perhaps more importantly, depending on it to the extent that they can't reasonably move away if they lose the patent grant. Even if Facebook did start using OSS from some small…

No it doesn't; read the license again. It disarms you from being the aggressor; if FB comes after you, you keep your right to counter-sue while also keeping your license to use the software.

Re: Relicensing React, Jest, Flow, and Immutable.js

#395

Post by kelnos »

spenczar5 wrote: post #212
guelo wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If BSD+patent was widely adopted it could disarm all sides equally.

No, it would disarm the group whose software is used by everyone else . If you're a small company, it's not likely that you have written stuff that Facebook uses. So, that world looks like one where all big companies are untouchable, but they can easily pick on small companies. Really not good.

Nope. See other replies. The license termination clause only goes into effect if you as the user of the software are the initial aggressor in a patent suit.

Re: Relicensing React, Jest, Flow, and Immutable.js

#396

Post by mseebach »

arca_vorago wrote: post #347
Bahamut wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you a lawyer? If not, you would be doing a disservice to anyone curious about the topic. My own company's lawyers consider the GPLv3 toxic and not allowed at all for company use in any software we create - that's enough for me.

Usually it is the lawyers doing people a disservice actually. That said, Eben Moglen is who I would refer you to. (Has been the lawyer for the FSF and RMS I think) Read the slide in the first few seconds. Does that look familiar to you? https://youtu.be/okEQt-Rla7o?t=863

The lawyers who would actually have to put their neck on the line says no. Eben Moglen is a campaigner, not anyone's lawyer (in the matter of defending a software product including GNU licensed components). The license actually isn't that long and the only argument on what it really means is going to take place in a courtroom in a carefully chosen district in Texas in front of a judge and jury that aren't quite comfortable operating 4-function pocket calculators. (And the defendant, by the way, isn't going to be some wholesome main street software outfit, it's going to be the nastiest, most ruthless gang you can imagine. 90% of the software community is going to on the record hating their living guts, you can bet Moglen, never mind RMS, is going to be nowhere to be seen given an impassioned defense of the legality of this company's use of GPLv3, regardless of how perfectly compatible it is with the promises they make now (FSF will submit a brief, but they are going to be very discreet about it). But the result will decide the legal interpretation of GPLv3 forever.)

That is the mental image of your company's lawyers when you ask about GPLv3.

This discussion sometimes feels like like the PHB telling Dilbert to go base the product on Oracle because of an article in CIO Monthly ("written by an EXPERT!") says it's the best database.

Re: Relicensing React, Jest, Flow, and Immutable.js

#397

Post by pksadiq »

arca_vorago wrote: post #324
jakobegger wrote: post #320

Earlier 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…

> You only have to give code to the user after purchase.

IANAL.

You don't really require to give the source code unless the purchased person asks for the source. Most people don't care about the source. And you require only to provide source for people who obtained the binary legally. Nobody else can demand for source code.

Say for example, most of the D-Link routers come with a warranty card saying the software is GPL and is available on request. Period.

You can also void the warranty of the software (and hardware) in case the software you sold was replaced with a modified version (afaik, requesting for source can't make the warranty void).

There are a few things to consider: GPL v2 requires you to produce the source code in CD/Floppy (or like media), while GPL v3 allows you to have the source uploaded to net (or sent via email).

Re: Relicensing React, Jest, Flow, and Immutable.js

#398

Post by tzs »

ergo14 wrote: post #363
tzs wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Facebook could now freely use your patented idea, and violating it left, right, and center, and if you try to sue them for violating that patent, you're completely f cked. Maybe, maybe not. You suing them over your patent would terminate you patent* license from Facebook, but not your copyright license. Whether that fucks you or not depends on whether or not you actually NEED a patent license from Facebook. As far…

There is - its been posted multiple times https://www.google.com/patents/US20170221242 .

Interesting. If that patent issues, is it going to be a problem for any React alternatives, or is what is described there unique to React?

Also, I'm curious. When did React start using the techniques covered in that patent application?

Re: Relicensing React, Jest, Flow, and Immutable.js

#400

Post by rocqua »

Lazare wrote: post #316
jakelazaroff wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there no similar penalty for intentionally foregoing due diligence specifically to avoid harsher penalties?

There is not. If you know the patent exists, you get higher (I think triple?) damages. If you don't, you don't. And you have no obligation to check. Example: There is a patent in the US on ordering food from a menu online. It's held by a NPE (aka, a patent troll), and they charge a fairly high license fee. Some people who offer online ordering to restaurants pay the license fee; others don't. If you don't pay, then y…

In some sense, reading this comment is actually harmful. I now know of that patent, so would be subject to triple damages.
Post reply on HN