5 ms·

> Make this available for free to anyone who doesn’t sue Google, doesn’t object to patents, etc > Legally, according to the patent license, I can’t use VP8 (Go

> Make this available for free to anyone who doesn’t sue Google, doesn’t object to patents, etc > Legally, according to the patent license, I can’t use VP8 (Google) OK, let's see: > If you or your agent or exclusive licensee institute or order or agree to the institution of patent litigation or any other patent enforcement activity against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that any of these implementations of WebM or any code incorporated within any of these implementations of WebM constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, or inducement of patent infringement, then any patent rights granted to you under this License for these implementations of WebM shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.[1] Seems upfront to me, and nothing to do with if you sue Google over matters unrelated to VP8, believe software patents are invalid, etc etc. It's just a modified Apache 2.0 patent license grant, so unless you object to all projects under that...? > 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.[2] [1] http://www.webmproject.org/license/additional/ http://www.webmproject.org/license/additional/ [2] http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0

kuschku 11y ago
I object to all current software patents, as I consider the whole process in which they are granted to be inacceptable. So, yes, I can not legally use any project that uses patents and only this grant.
- cdcarter 11y ago
  Objecting to the concept of software patents doesn't make it illegal for you to use the software.
  - kuschku 11y ago
    Except for the "if the user questions the validity of any Facebook Inc. patents, this license becomes null and void" part...
    - raverbashing 11y ago
      It probably means "in court" not just saying "I think software patents should not exist"
      - kuschku 11y ago
        Which makes no difference to me. If I can’t say in court "I believe the patent is invalid", then I can’t use the software. It’s not "free" if they require you to believe their political ideas to use it.
        rayiner 11y ago
        "Validity" is a legal term of art in patents. Agreeing not to challenge the validity of the patent means, e.g., that you won't file an IPR seeking invalidation on anticipation grounds. It doesn't require you to subscribe to any set of political beliefs.
        kuschku 11y ago
        It requires that I don’t file a case questioning their validity. And I don’t want to give up that freedom. As I am sure that I will do so.
        rayiner 11y ago
        That's totally fair. I'm just pointing out that when it says "validity" it's not encompassing the abstract question of "is the patent system valid?"
        kuschku 11y ago
- incepted 11y ago
  > I object to all current software patents, That's a pretty extreme and naive view. We live in a complex world and some software patents have their place. What we need to get rid of is patent trolls, though. Without non-practicing entities, software patents would be a lot more useful.
  - eru 11y ago
    Nah, it's not that extreme. It's not more extreme than some objecting to all form of eg euthanasia. (Which is a fairly mainstream view.)
  - kuschku 11y ago
    Software patents are unnecessary, as algorithms fall under existing patents anyway. The only acceptable patent is one that provides a specific solution to a problem, an algorithm, etc.
- adventured 11y ago
  You're very obviously conflating personal preference with law. What you said doesn't make any sense. Let me give you an example: I object to high-fructose corn syrup being in Coca Cola in the US market, therefore it's illegal for me to drink Coca Cola in the US.
  - kuschku 11y ago
    No. The patent license of react says "this license becomes void if the user objects to the validity of software patents, KR questions the validity of any Facebook Inc. patent". (Quoted from memory, so not guaranteed to be accurate)

kuschku 11y ago

I object to all current software patents, as I consider the whole process in which they are granted to be inacceptable. So, yes, I can not legally use any project that uses patents and only this grant.

cdcarter 11y ago
Objecting to the concept of software patents doesn't make it illegal for you to use the software.
- kuschku 11y ago
  Except for the "if the user questions the validity of any Facebook Inc. patents, this license becomes null and void" part...
  - raverbashing 11y ago
    It probably means "in court" not just saying "I think software patents should not exist"
    - kuschku 11y ago
      Which makes no difference to me. If I can’t say in court "I believe the patent is invalid", then I can’t use the software. It’s not "free" if they require you to believe their political ideas to use it.
      - rayiner 11y ago
        "Validity" is a legal term of art in patents. Agreeing not to challenge the validity of the patent means, e.g., that you won't file an IPR seeking invalidation on anticipation grounds. It doesn't require you to subscribe to any set of political beliefs.
        kuschku 11y ago
        It requires that I don’t file a case questioning their validity. And I don’t want to give up that freedom. As I am sure that I will do so.
        rayiner 11y ago
        That's totally fair. I'm just pointing out that when it says "validity" it's not encompassing the abstract question of "is the patent system valid?"
        kuschku 11y ago
incepted 11y ago
> I object to all current software patents, That's a pretty extreme and naive view. We live in a complex world and some software patents have their place. What we need to get rid of is patent trolls, though. Without non-practicing entities, software patents would be a lot more useful.
- eru 11y ago
  Nah, it's not that extreme. It's not more extreme than some objecting to all form of eg euthanasia. (Which is a fairly mainstream view.)
- kuschku 11y ago
  Software patents are unnecessary, as algorithms fall under existing patents anyway. The only acceptable patent is one that provides a specific solution to a problem, an algorithm, etc.
adventured 11y ago
You're very obviously conflating personal preference with law. What you said doesn't make any sense. Let me give you an example: I object to high-fructose corn syrup being in Coca Cola in the US market, therefore it's illegal for me to drink Coca Cola in the US.
- kuschku 11y ago
  No. The patent license of react says "this license becomes void if the user objects to the validity of software patents, KR questions the validity of any Facebook Inc. patent". (Quoted from memory, so not guaranteed to be accurate)