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

511–520 of 528 posts

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

#511

Post by Fzzr »

Fzzr wrote: post #142
JamesFM wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is highly confusing to me. If implicit patent grants are a thing, why have more modern licenses like Apache 2 and GPL 3 made it a point to include explicit patents grants in the language of the license? Wouldn’t their legal counsel advise them against it if it was redundant?

Explicit probably saves a lot of time in court, and helps with global consistency. More importantly, Apache 2 and GPL 3 include reciprocal patent grants. They work similarly to the React patent grant, but unlike that one they go both ways. In the React one, only you lose access to the patents if you sue Facebook, but Facebook can sue you fine even if you contributed to React. Under Apache 2 and GPL 3, no one contribu…

Correction: I'm not sure Apache 2 and GPL work that way. IANAL and please read the licenses yourself (and consult counsel if needed).

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

#512

Post by ec109685 »

blktiger wrote: post #486
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…

It's not just big companies necessarily either. Say you are a small startup working on something really innovative and you have a patent on part of your work. Facebook decides to build something similar, violating your patents in the process, and they are going to put you out of business. If one of your core technologies is react under the BSD + Patents license, then you are screwed. You can't sue to save your busine…

Why would you immediately have to recall your software? Facebook would have to have counter sued you for some hypothetical patent they have for React first and “recall all your software” would have had to be the court ordered remedy.

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

#513

Post by ec109685 »

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.

Facebook could never take away your license to the software. BSD license was irrevocable, whether you sued them or not.

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

#514

Post by ec109685 »

mcbits wrote: post #440
Zarel wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> promises not to sue unless you sue them first Isn't that exactly the same as Facebook's license grant?

Red Hat: You can use our patents if we can use your software. Facebook: You can use our software if we can use your patents. That's my severely over-simplified interpretation. The most significant difference is that Red Hat's promise extends to FOSS in general, though apparently not proprietary software. Facebook's license applies only to specific Facebook FOSS code, but it can be used in proprietary software.

Your interpretation is wrong. RedHat’s promise is revoked if you sue them for any patent infringement:

>Our Promise also does not extend to the actions of a party (including past actions) if at any time the party or its affiliate asserts a patent in proceedings against Red Hat (or its affiliate) or any offering of Red Hat (or its affiliate) (including a cross-claim or counterclaim).

So RedHat can hypothetically use all of your software patents and still sue you for infringement based on their patents if you sue them.

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

#515

Post by mcbits »

ec109685 wrote: post #514
mcbits wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Red Hat: You can use our patents if we can use your software. Facebook: You can use our software if we can use your patents. That's my severely over-simplified interpretation. The most significant difference is that Red Hat's promise extends to FOSS in general, though apparently not proprietary software. Facebook's license applies only to specific Facebook FOSS code, but it can be used in proprietary software.

Your interpretation is wrong. RedHat’s promise is revoked if you sue them for any patent infringement: >Our Promise also does not extend to the actions of a party (including past actions) if at any time the party or its affiliate asserts a patent in proceedings against Red Hat (or its affiliate) or any offering of Red Hat (or its affiliate) (including a cross-claim or counterclaim). So RedHat can hypothetically use a…

Yeah, I mentioned that above: "unless you sue them first." That's not a major difference from Facebook's terms.

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

#517

Post by epicide »

CydeWeys wrote: post #503
ng12 wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, he's not. He's pointing out that calling it an "exodus" implies that many individual projects have decided to abandon React. In this context WordPress is just one project, not "25% of all websites".

WordPress runs 25% of all websites. That is huge. You're trying to trivialize it as being "just one project" when it's really one of the most widely used and significant projects out there. One decision that WordPress makes is worth tens of thousands of decisions from much smaller projects that aren't used very widely. WordPress is a many billion dollar a year industry in itself, and whether it uses React or not will…

You are trivializing the difference between "using" and "choosing". One is transitive, the other is not.

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

#518

Post by epicide »

swyx wrote: post #269
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.

"great" is relative to how much free time you have evaluating all the various alternatives and finding the bugs/missing use cases nobody cares to tell you about up front..

> the bugs/missing use cases nobody cares to tell you about

In the case of fewer frameworks, you would still have these. Arguably more due to lack of competition.

> evaluating all the various alternatives

Pick one of the "Big 3" above. You'll be fine. Largely due to the previous point.

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

#519

Post by discordianfish »

irrational wrote: post #447
discordianfish wrote: post #436

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because facebook can sue them for violating their patents, now that they removed the patents grant.

But they switched the license to MIT. We use tons of software with that license and our lawyers are fine with it.

I don't know the reasons for your lawyers, it's possible I miss something here but it looks to me like MIT+Patents-grant gives you more right and more protection.

Facebook can sue you anyway, no matter what the license is. The grant made it impossible for facebook to sue you unless you sue first. That's gone now.

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

#520

Post by dllthomas »

lftl wrote: post #433
jaredklewis wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pa…

The only legitimate criticism I've heard of the FB patent grant is that FB could intentionally infringe your patents and the you couldn't sue them for infringement without losing your React patent grant. It's such a narrow case though that I seriously doubt it's a legitimate concern for most of the people complaining about it.

And you can stop using React, then sue. Even if they also stop using your patent, they were in violation when they used it. They can't retroactively put you in violation with their revocation.

Moreover, nothing is preventing you from informing them of your patent and asking that they stop using it. If they continue to, it's clearly willful infringement.

Post reply on HN