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

91–100 of 528 posts

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

#91

Post by nojvek »

carussell wrote: post #48
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.

> a win for the open source community as a whole I'm not sure how changing course from a direction that could have neutralized patents, to one engineered so patent aggressors aren't hurt, is something that can be considered a win for the open source community.

Because their licence gave Facebook the upper hand if they wanted to come after you.

MIT is like a standard when it comes to OS. At big companies, complicated licencies are very hard to get approval of.

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

#93

Post by SwellJoe »

kelnos wrote: post #71

So... I guess I still don't understand what was wrong with BSD+Patents. I get that there's legal uncertainty: I can imagine some companies, especially larger ones, not wanting to give up their patent-suit option just because one random small team in their org is using React. And barriers to adoption aren't a great idea when one of your goals is wide adoption. Overall, though, I think making it much harder to file pat…

I think it's more about the complexity of licensing, patents, and the uncertainty a new license presents.

Using a license that's been in use for a long time, and has the endorsement of major OSS organizations, is pretty much always more comfortable for developers.

I wasn't uncomfortable enough with their licenses to rule out their projects based on the license, but I understand the folks who were. Even if my reading of the license makes me unafraid of it, there was enough uncertainty about how a court, particularly courts that have a history of siding with patent trolls, might interpret the license, for it to make some people nervous.

Also, the belief that the copyrights and patents involved will always belong to a benevolent actor ignores a lot of tech history. See: SCO, Oracle, etc. for examples of a previously decent stakeholder being consumed by a more malevolent and litigious one with a different interpretation of the law and the license. facebook may be a huge, unassailable, force today...can we be certain that in ten years that'll still be true? I'd bet on it, but I also won't be shocked if something dramatic happens. Sun looked pretty unassailable through the 80s and 90s, and then they didn't.

Big companies building big projects have to think about these things if they want to be responsible about the future of their projects. (Again, I agree that in this case, the fear is probably overblown. But, I get where it's coming from.)

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

#94

Post by brandonbloom »

JamesFM wrote: post #63

Wait, this doesn’t solve anything. They replaced BSD with MIT, which are basically the same license and then they removed any explicit patent grant. So this means the user is actually granted less rights then before. Am I missing something or does this make zero sense?

That's what all the Facebook & React folks were arguing. Facebook doesn't want to do unconditional patent grants. Plus, they decided that the weak patent retaliation clause in Apache 2 license wasn't strong enough. This new license is strictly riskier for people than the old license, but it's more familiar, so people won't freak out.

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

#95

Post by electriclove »

Before all the congratulating goes too far, it is important to realize that only some projects had the license change but it went to an MIT license. What people really want is for these projects to be licensed under Apache 2 (like they did with RocksDB).

The other thing is that there are many projects that are STILL going to be on the BSD+Patent license. These include widely used projects such as React Native and GraphQL.

This behavior is reminiscent of their strategy of invading their users' privacy and then retracting a bit and then doing it again. Wash, rinse, repeat...

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

#97

Post by sergiotapia »

0xbear wrote: post #10

Why not Apache 2.0 though? That would have been a logical choice.

Why pick a license with much more legalese? MIT is pure OSS love, no BS no need to hire a legal team. You just use it. I love the MIT license.

Why would you have preferred the Apache 2.0 license?

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

#98

Post by nostrademons »

JamesFM wrote: post #63

Wait, this doesn’t solve anything. They replaced BSD with MIT, which are basically the same license and then they removed any explicit patent grant. So this means the user is actually granted less rights then before. Am I missing something or does this make zero sense?

Implied patent licenses:

https://www.wilmerhale.com/pages/publicationsandnewsdetail.a...

https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech7.html

Basically, if you sell or license a product that requires a patent to work, courts have generally held that you grant an implied patent license for any patents that the product might require. If you explicitly reference patents within the license, however, then whatever terms you explicitly write into the license supersede this implied patent license. BSD+patents (and Apache 2) have explicit patent language; paradoxically, this makes them more restrictive than licenses like MIT, BSD, or GPL that don't mention patents at all.

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

#99

Post by pknopf »

joshmanders wrote: post #90
Twirrim wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a strange claim given how many major projects have appeared on the front page of HN because of it, everything from the Apache foundation to Wordpress.

> everything from the Apache foundation to Wordpress. Those were the only two.

We get it, React would have been fine with out them.

But it did matter.

It set a strong precedent.

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

#100

Post by jnbiche »

abritinthebay wrote: post #46
liuliu wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MIT license doesn't contain any patent clause. So it is the same as BSD + Patents with patents part revoked. Thus, in theory, FB can still have a case on patent over React even if you use the source with copyright grant. Apache 2.0 has a patent grant from my understanding.

Yup. There’s going to a lot of self congratulation going on in the comments but basically all this has done is remove explicit granting of patents . Like... ok, great, better really hope you never get into legal issues with FB now

> basically all this has done is remove explicit granting of patents

If that were true, then why would they write all those blog posts saying that the BSD+Patents was "for their protection". They even repeated it here. It's pretty clear that the patent grant was asymmetric, but not in the direction you're suggesting here.

Post reply on HN