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

Explaining React's license

code.facebook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 622 posts

Re: Explaining React's license

#431

Post by koolba »

Lazare wrote: post #428
koolba wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the linked FAQ: >> Does the additional patent grant in the Facebook BSD+Patents license terminate if I sue Facebook for something other than patent infringement? > No. >> Does the additional patent grant in the Facebook BSD+Patents license terminate if Facebook sues me for patent infringement first, and then I respond with a patent counterclaim against Facebook? > No, unless your patent counterclaim is related t…

> immediately sue me for infringement. Of what? Patents are public; link me the patent you think they'd sue you for infringing. :)

> Of what? Patents are public; link me the patent you think they'd sue you for infringing. :)

If they really want to crush little ol' me, I'm sure their legal team can find something in their existing patent warchest that would apply to React.

Plus we don't know if they have applied for patents that would apply to React that are still under review.

Re: Explaining React's license

#432

Post by quickben »

coldtea wrote: post #354
quickben wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's deeper than that. Say you are a company A, and have product P that uses react. You find out that company B infringed on a patent in your other product Q. You sue B. It turns out B is owned by FB. Your product P is in trouble.

Because you can't just rewrite it in another framework if such a totally contrived case arrive?

The way I'm reading some related discussions, it seems their main problem is being suddenly open to patent lawsuit.

Re: Explaining React's license

#433

Post by Eridrus »

eridius wrote: post #35

> We've been looking for ways around this and have reached out to ASF to see if we could try to work with them, but have come up empty. There's a pretty obvious solution to this: relicense React. The fact that Facebook isn't even considering that is a pretty strong indication that they "weaponized" their license on purpose. > To this point, though, we haven't done a good job of explaining the reasons behind our BSD +…

> Clearly you don't, because you've intentionally designed a license to allow you carte blanche to violate other companies' patents if they're dependent enough upon React to not be able to easily stop using it.

I think it's pretty clear how disingenuous this is since they don't even constrain the patent revocation to IP lawsuits.

If they were doing this in good faith they would want to scope this as tightly as they could, but this is clearly Facebook just trying to extract additional benefit from their OSS contributions.

Re: Explaining React's license

#434

Post by falcolas »

Lazare wrote: post #181
falcolas wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being sued, whether the patent is valid or not, is really expensive. Unless you're Google, or of similar size, you're going to lose just due to the costs. Using React just opens you up to liability, with no real benefit (other than using React). Why would you use it?

> Using React just opens you up to liability, with no real benefit (other than using React). How? Again, if they have a patent, they can sue you if you use one of the alternatives mentioned. If they don't have a patent, they can't sue you if you use React. What's your thinking behind saying using React adds liability? Because to me, it looks like either it does nothing or it reduces liability.

You have it backwards.

If you have a patent, and use React, you can't sue Facebook if they use your patent.

Re: Explaining React's license

#435

Post by mygo »

jaredklewis wrote: post #121
SAI_Peregrinus wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are worried about Situation C: React is licensed under BSD + PATENTS. You sue Facebook (or any corporate affiliate of theirs) for infringing on your widget patent. Facebook revokes your react license and counter sues you for copyright infringement. The patents clause doesn't have anything to do with any patents on parts of React. It's a way for Facebook to make it so that anyone who wants to sue them for paten…

Situation C is identical to situation A and B. You sue Facebook (or any affiliate) and Facebook counter sues you. You get counter sued whether or not there is a PATENTS file.

No it is NOT identical. In situation A/C (React is licensed under BSD + PATENTS), you have explicitly agreed to have what is essentially your lawful use of React immediately revoked if you sue Facebook for patent infringement. So you sue Facebook, and whether or not your suit is of merit: You have to immediately stop using React. This actually prevents people who are dependent on React from suing Facebook for patent infringement, since they'd basically have to remove any dependency on React before suing. And this emboldens Facebook to infringe on the patents of entities who have a dependency on React, where it would be a major undertaking for the React-dependent organization to cease the use of react. Remember, Facebook is saying they have this in place to prevent merit-less legal battles. But the way they've set it up, it's not a question of whether your suit has merit or not. Facebook is saying "Sue us for patent infringement, and you immediately give up your use of React. Period." So the court rules in your favor over an unrelated patent infringement case? Congrats you won that case, but you've still given up your use of React, because you sued Facebook.

In situation B (React is licensed under just BSD), the patent rights necessary to use React are not written in explicit terms. You have made no explicit agreement to have your patent grant to use React revoked when you sue Facebook for patent infringement. In addition, without an explicit patent grant, a patent grant is implied with the license. You can at least continue to use React until the results of the court case.

Re: Explaining React's license

#436

Post by Eridrus »

coldtea wrote: post #355
Eridrus wrote: post #40

I think the reasoning that this will protect them against frivolous lawsuits is pretty poor; you only need a patent grant if you're actually building software. Patent trolls don't build anything so they have no need for patent grants.

> Patent trolls don't build anything so they have no need for patent grants. You'd be surprised. Patent trolls can have all forms, not just a only-suing company. Some company that has failed as a startup, but which holds 1-2 patents might decide to turn into patent-trolling to make a quick back while it dies. Think also of companies like SCO.

> Some company that has failed as a startup, but which holds 1-2 patents might decide to turn into patent-trolling to make a quick back while it dies.

If the startup is dead it should be trivial to transfer the patents to a separate entity and then sue from that entity, making counter-suits irrelevant.

This only has an affect on companies which are a going concern.

Companies who plan to make litigation part of their strategy can pretty easily just not use React.

This does the most harm to companies who were not planning to come into conflict with Facebook, and then do.

Re: Explaining React's license

#437

Post by cyphar »

Lazare wrote: post #263
JoshMnem wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you mean this one? https://code.facebook.com/pages/850928938376556 It doesn't address the scenario of Facebook's violating your patents first.

The key phrase I was replying to was "Facebook will revoke your React license." Facebook cannot revoke your React license in any circumstances, as that link makes clear.

They revoke the React patent grant, which effectively downgrades "the React license" to just a stock BSD 3-clause license. At that point they will likely counter-sue you for patent infringement.

In my mind that situation is effectively identical to losing "the right to use" license on grounds of patent suit (like Apache). Interestingly, in Apache you'd still be sued for patent infringement (not copyright infringement) because "right to use" is provided as a patent license.

Re: Explaining React's license

#438

Post by cyphar »

chii wrote: post #119
jnbiche wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're missing the fact that if you sue Facebook for any patent infringement, even a legitimate one (say, you're the creator of some new hardware), Facebook will revoke your React license. Also, Facebook has no vdom patent. It's not like you can be granted a secret, hidden patent (even the word "patent" itself means "open").

> Facebook will revoke your React license. you mean their patent grant? How can an open source license like apache, MIT or bsd be "revoked"? Do facebook have a public blacklist of people who aren't allowed to use react?

Apache revokes your rights under the patent section of the license if you sue anyone for patents granted under said license:

> If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.

Note that the "Grant of Copyright License" of Apache doesn't grant you the right to use the work, so revoking the patent license is effectively revoking the whole license (though you can still redistribute the work).

Re: Explaining React's license

#439

Post by patrickaljord »

mundanevoice wrote: post #423
patrickaljord wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a list of companies using React: - Microsoft - Uber - Yahoo Mail - Dropbox - Airbnb - Netflix - NY Times If they're ok with the license, you probably shouldn't worry too much. Basically, if you don't own any patents or if your company is smaller than any of the above, you should be ok.

This is a very dangerous follower mentality. You and I are not in the league of these big companies. If FB sues them they have deep enough pockets to fight back. But we, we would just vanish into thin air.

If you develop a patent worth a billion dollar that Facebook wants to steal, you will probably be ok too.

Re: Explaining React's license

#440

Post by JoshMnem »

scarlac wrote: post #334
JoshMnem wrote: post #223

I'm not sure if React (and the other projects that contain the PATENTS file) will survive the backlash to this in the long run. Vue.js is rapidly climbing in popularity, and Elm is probably going to go mainstream in 2018. There are alternatives like Mithril and Ember too.

The only way I see people stop using React is if there's an example of a company being counter-sued by Facebook as a result of the license or something like that.

Many companies already can't use React. The numbers will increase.
Post reply on HN