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

571–580 of 622 posts

Re: Explaining React's license

#571

Post by abiox »

Spivak wrote: post #535
evgen wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A more likely explanation is that these large orgs employ real lawyers who looked at the licence and grant and who then approved the use of react because they are professional lawyers who actually understand the legalities involved, unlike 99% of the commenters in this thread.

What's not to understand? If Facebook infringes on one of your software patents your choices are to rewrite your existing React code and sue them for damages or ignore it. Once your 'professional lawyer' agrees that the license is enforceable it's up to you to decide whether giving Facebook an effective grant of all your patents it worth it.

> rewrite your existing React code

my understanding is that this isn't the case - react isn't itself covered by patent, and the bsd license remains in effect.

Re: Explaining React's license

#572

Post by abiox »

mygo wrote: post #461
jaredklewis wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What protection? The PATENTS takes rights away from Facebook, and gives rights to grantees. Facebook is in a stronger position without it. They added it to be nice. Without patents file: - Facebook can sue you for any reason, including react related patent infringement - You have no patent grant for anything in react - You can sue Facebook for anything, including patent infringement. With patents file: - Facebook can…

Wrong. Without patents file there is an implicit patent grant.

exactly what patents are covered by this 'implicit grant'?

Re: Explaining React's license

#573

Post by abiox »

DougBTX wrote: post #498
allover wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've seen it pointed out before though that it would fall back to just the BSD license and others countered saying that was definitely not the case Those others were wrong. Facebook have made this very clear in their FAQ [1]: > Does termination of the additional patent grant in the Facebook BSD+Patents license cause the copyright license to also terminate? > No. [1] https://code.facebook.com/pages/850928938376556

That answer only addresses the "copyright license", others argue that plain BSD is a "license to use". If BSD is a "license to use", then it is implicitly a copyright license _and_ a patent licence. Assuming the above, the argument goes that the implicit patent license in plain BSD is overridden by the explicit patent license in BSD+Patents, and that the explicit one is much more restrictive than the (unwritten) impl…

From what I understand, React isn't under patent, so what patents would be 'implicitly licensed'?

Re: Explaining React's license

#574

Post by yuhong »

I just noticed that software patents and employment anti-discrimination laws have some very similar problems. With the performance of manual labor jobs and physical patents the tests tends to be relatively objective, and that was probably what both laws was designed for. With many other jobs and with software patents this is often not the case, making the laws much easier to abuse for example.

Re: Explaining React's license

#575

Post by yuhong »

yuhong wrote: post #574

I just noticed that software patents and employment anti-discrimination laws have some very similar problems. With the performance of manual labor jobs and physical patents the tests tends to be relatively objective, and that was probably what both laws was designed for. With many other jobs and with software patents this is often not the case, making the laws much easier to abuse for example.

As a side note, this is also why anti-discrimination laws still make sense for things like public places and voting, because the test for whether someone is able to vote for example tends to be objective.

Re: Explaining React's license

#578

Post by kavok »

Lazare wrote: post #266
kavok wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that we even have to have this discussion is a reason not to use it. I'd have to a hire a lawyer and disclose it to my investors to be cleared up. It would cost us money to validate because it does something different compared to any other similar project. My investors were very specific about software licenses - we aren't allowed to use GPLv4 or AGPL at all.

> I'd have to a hire a lawyer and disclose it to my investors to be cleared up That seems extremely weird. Normal startups do nothing of the kind; do you have extremely weird investors? > My investors were very specific about software licenses - we aren't allowed to use GPLv4 or AGPL at all. Ah, there we go. First off, there's no such thing as GPLv4. Second of all, you do realise that avoiding even the AGPL puts you…

Sorry - meant GPLv3. All of the software we use is GPLv1/2, BSD, MIT, Apache etc..

Re: Explaining React's license

#579

Post by delinka »

navinsylvester wrote: post #403
delinka wrote: post #386

Someone please help me understand the problems here. The repository includes two documents: 1) a proper BSD license, and 2) a patent license. While reading the latter, I see no mention of it affecting the former. So my take on this is that it's BSD-licensed code. Period. The patent license is a "bonus" and not at all required by the BSD license, and doesn't affect the BSD license. Any other company offering BSD licen…

This explains the rationale: https://www.cncf.io/blog/2017/02/01/cncf-recommends-aslv2/

This reads to me like it boils down to "oh, geez, stop making people read your additional licenses and just use ours." And that's fine. But the HN comments all make it sound like the situation with a custom patent license is an offensive affront to their existence as software engineers. And I personally disagree with that strong stance. Especially from a group that also seems to agree that patents in the software world are obnoxious and would presumably not ever sue over such a patent...

Re: Explaining React's license

#580

Post by rmc »

Strom wrote: post #271
jlrubin wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> closed source That's not really the problem here. The problem is that by using React, even in a closed source context, you are potentially setting yourself up to not successfully make an IP claim against facebook, even for unrelated technologies.

Not being able to sue with patents is not something I give much value to. Software patents aren't even valid where I live and operate. They concern me only as far as USA has the will to have a global jurisdiction. However if Facebook wants to sue me for something ridiculous and has the USA government's global help, then Apache 2.0 license isn't going to save me, they will find something else.

Is it limited to software patents? e.g. if BMW uses React in a project, and FB has a patent which covers React, then I think FB can use all of BMW's patents without paying, and BMW either has a choice of changing away from React, or not suing FB. Could be helpful if FB wants to do something with cars.
Post reply on HN