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

411–420 of 528 posts

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

#411

Post by SpaceNugget »

kelnos wrote: post #394
eridius wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes it does, Them using patents that you don't grant them and you being unable to sue them for it is definitely putting the power in their hands.

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

#412

Post by marksomnian »

madeofpalk wrote: post #404
marksomnian wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were close to arriving but they backtracked, all 25% of them. I'd call that an exodus before you even arrive.

...of sites that posted on HN. Projects that I work(ed) on that use React have no plans to switch away and aren't represented in that 25%.

That's not what I meant.

25% of sites on the Internet run WordPress. WordPress was rewriting its editor in React, but decided to switch away due to BSD+Patents.

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

#413

Post by pasta1212 »

maxton wrote: post #8

This is a very smart move by Facebook, and a win for the open source community as a whole. Why it took so long for the license change is a bit of a mystery, but removing the complications of software patents from their licenses will help further drive adoption and remove the precedent they were in danger of setting.

> Why it took so long for the license change is a bit of a mystery

Be careful. Facebook hasn’t said they’re removing the patents override completely. All they’ve said here is they’re changing their licensing, not what they’ll do. They may end up with BSD+Different patents grant. Make sure you check the changes next week. I doubt it will be straight BSD or they would have said it.

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

#414

Post by Eridrus »

slaymaker1907 wrote: post #289
wrs wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not at all. Willful infringement is grounds for triple damages . So "never, ever, ever look at patents unless an attorney asks you to" was the company policy at Microsoft and Apple when I was there, and at several other major tech companies whose policies I happen to have heard of. If you were to mention to a company attorney that you've looked at another entity's patent, there would be a loud screeching noise from t…

Isn't the point of the patent system supposed to be to encourage people to open up ideas for general use instead of hoarding them?

Maybe at one point, I don't think any policy person has thought this in a long time though.

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

#415

Post by madeofpalk »

marksomnian wrote: post #412
madeofpalk wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...of sites that posted on HN. Projects that I work(ed) on that use React have no plans to switch away and aren't represented in that 25%.

That's not what I meant. 25% of sites on the Internet run WordPress. WordPress was rewriting its editor in React, but decided to switch away due to BSD+Patents.

Right so even then, its a bit weird to say that 25% of sites decided to not go with React, but actually 25% of sites (unknowingly) use software that decided not to go with React.

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

#416

Post by bpicolo »

nathan_f77 wrote: post #380
LibertyBeta wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would stay with Vue. While the react world is bugger it's mostly made up of competing solutions instead of distinct tasks. That said, this healthy Vue/Angular/React competition has been great for us devs.

I agree that competition is generally good, but I hate choices so much. I don't even care if Vue is 10 times better than React, I've just spent the last year diving into React and React Native. I've finished 3 big projects and now I'm feeling more confident. And now I get the feeling that I have to throw out a whole bunch of experience and switch to the next big thing. I think I'm going to dig in my heels this time.…

> over a year of headaches and frustration

Seems like an argument against the react ecosystem

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

#417

Post by JoshMnem »

valarauca1 wrote: post #372
JoshMnem wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a lawyer, but doesn't BSD/MIT has an implicit patent grant? It would be absurd for a company to argue that they put their software out there for everyone to freely use, but "JUST KIDDING -- we secretly didn't give you rights to use the related patents that we didn't tell you about." It would be interesting to see the backlash if a company ever tries that one. They would probably lose a lot of their own develo…

It doesn’t. This is BSD/MIT is consider a _bad_ license if you want to convert patent concerns.

It says: "Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: [include this notice, no liability]"

Without restrictions or limitations. As far as I know, it has not been tested in court, but I think it would be suicide among the developer community for a company to try to do that.

Everyone should have patent concerns either way. The ideal solution would be to abolish software patents.

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

#418

Post by bpicolo »

pasta1212 wrote: post #413
maxton wrote: post #8

This is a very smart move by Facebook, and a win for the open source community as a whole. Why it took so long for the license change is a bit of a mystery, but removing the complications of software patents from their licenses will help further drive adoption and remove the precedent they were in danger of setting.

> Why it took so long for the license change is a bit of a mystery Be careful. Facebook hasn’t said they’re removing the patents override completely. All they’ve said here is they’re changing their licensing, not what they’ll do. They may end up with BSD+Different patents grant. Make sure you check the changes next week. I doubt it will be straight BSD or they would have said it.

The article straight up says these repos are moving to MIT

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

#419

Post by nilliams »

chrisco255 wrote: post #337
spenczar5 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current state of things is that patents are stockpiled as deterrents, kind of like nuclear weapons. All of the big companies know that if they sued one another over some patent claim, the other side would retaliate, and it would be a big mess with no real winners. Facebook's patent clause disarms all their opponents, but leaves them free to attack. It's actually a wildly aggressive, offensive weapon, surprisingly…

No, they said your license didn't terminate if you had a counterclaim against them. The only event that license terminated was if YOU attacked Facebook.

> The only event that license terminated

Patent grant terminated, not license

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

#420

Post by npsomaratna »

gpderetta wrote: post #366
njharman wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am also not a lawyer. But I don't think a "promise" is a legally enforceable concept.

I'm not a lawyer either, but the estoppel doctrine should make it enforceable.

3rd year law student (among other things!) here. As you've mentioned, the doctrine of promissory estoppel should make this enforceable in law.
Post reply on HN