541–550 of 622 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Once their is an explicit grant, any implicit grant you would have gotten is extinguished. Citation needed. And if you aren't planning to sue over software patents, then the author is clearly correct that this is strictly better than BSD/MIT alone.
> sue over software patents The grant isn't specifically about software patents, it's about all patents.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> multiple legal teams (Apache and Google, at least) don't want to entangle themselves with it. Citation needed on Google. Apache isn't "not wanting to be entangled", they reject EVERY license which gives stronger protections for user freedoms than apache license alone, like the gpl, lgpl, cddl, mpl, etc, etc, etc. Google has no problem using the gpl for linux and lots of licenses and projects that apache would rejec…
DannyBee is on this thread. That is good enough citation for me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if a project's license is radioactive It's not a copyright license. It's a patent grant/license which is completely independent. This matters for several reasons, including when just saying "license", this usually means a copyright license. If this patent grant get's revoked, you are back to simply using the BSD license with no patent grant. I've read so many people say "you'd have to stop using react if you sued f…
I think you're missing the plot. Currently, there is a big philosophical debate on whether OSS licenses like the BSD include an implicit patent grant. When Facebook explicitly includes a revocable patent grant, your argument of the BSD license "with no patent grant" is self-fulfilling. But if the PATENTS file had never existed, then what you have is "a BSD license with a potentially implicit patent grant", which has…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IANAL, but the problem with MIT is that it doesn't give you anything in relation to patents. I.e. it doesn't even mention them. In this respect, it's no better than React's BSD without patents. I.e. MIT and BSD are quite similar.
The MIT license doesn't mention copyright either, except to state who holds the copyright and forbid you from changing that statement. The actual permission notice says you have the right to use the software without restriction. To me, a layman, it would seem contradictory and unfair if they later claimed that they held previously unmentioned patents that restricted your use of the software.
I love love love love love react as a technology, but this is just awful. I believe any developer not on Facebook's payroll still contributing to React or React native at this point has a moral obligation to stop. I personally feel like such a fool for not taking all this seriously before the ASF gave me a wakeup call. React is a trojan horse into the open source community that Facebook purposely and maliciously stee…
> if a project's license is radioactive It's not a copyright license. It's a patent grant/license which is completely independent. This matters for several reasons, including when just saying "license", this usually means a copyright license. If this patent grant get's revoked, you are back to simply using the BSD license with no patent grant. I've read so many people say "you'd have to stop using react if you sued f…
I meant to write "better than using." Also, I was not aware of the implied patent license argument.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, I planned to learn more about React, but reading now this convinced me to learn Vue.js instead. It's under MIT license developed by a single person in addition to community's contribution. This link is rather interesting https://vuejs.org/v2/guide/comparison.html#React
Alternatively there's this: https://github.com/developit/preact Preact is a fast 3kB alternative to React, with the same ES2015 API as that of React. Preact is MIT licensed and does not have any additional conditions beyond that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Caffe and Caffe2 is also a good example!
What - Caffe2 is a Facebook project? I used the original Caffe and thought it was built by Berkely University - Caffe2 only shared the name I guess?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that the descision to use react is not longer a descision for the developers in an organisation. It's now a descision for the legal team. And thats not good. This is the situation I now find myself in. The next few months will be spent removing react and immutable from the project I'm working on because th legal department say so. This is quite frankly, bullshit.
Have you looked into preact? For most projects, it's just a few lines in webpack. Immutable js is different, but shouldn't be that much work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It would be a huge win for companies with large software patent portfolios This is backwards. Those are exactly the companies that would be harmed, because their hopes to be able to wield those patents offensively have been nixed.
Companies like FB/AMZN/GOOG/MSFT have, effectively, unlimited engineering resources. And money. They simply smash any incoming problems into dust with brute force. Startups do not matter. Hell, few companies other than huge ones matter. "We might have to replace a 10,000 line piece of free software" is nothing to them. If they wage war against another MegaCo, nothing really changes with this license. That legal battl…
If you assume that MegaCorp is evil, the startup has no life whatsoever, whatever open source license is picked. If instead assume that MegaCorp is good, the patent grant has a positive effect on the ecosystem.