6 ms·

Has Facebook removed the potentially dangerous patent restrictions? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8985541 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8985541

by zactato 11y ago

spicyj 11y ago
We updated the patent grant to be less restrictive in response to community feedback about a year ago (several months after the discussion you linked): https://github.com/facebook/react/commit/b8ba8c83f318b84e42933f6928f231dc0918f864 https://github.com/facebook/react/commit/b8ba8c83f318b84e429... Since that change I've heard few complaints, and I know for a fact that several large companies who were previously unwilling to use it are now content with the language.
- interlocutor 11y ago
  I noticed you italicized the word grant. In reality the "grant" isn't granting; it is taking away. Let me explain: If React didn't have an explicit "grant" there would be an implicit grant. Is the explicit grant better than an implicit grant? It isn't because the explicit grant has what is known as a strong retaliation clause. More info on weak vs strong retaliation clauses: http://www.rosenlaw.com/lj9.htm http://www.rosenlaw.com/lj9.htm React's patent "grant" gives you a license to React's patents. This sounds like a good thing, however, the "grant" has a "strong retaliation clause" which says that if you make any sort of patent claim against Facebook this patent grant automatically terminates. Which means Facebook can now sue you for patent infringement for using React. You may think this is no worse than not having a patent grant at all. But that's not the case. If React didn't have an explicit patent grant then there would be an implicit grant which does not have any retaliation clauses, and cannot be revoked. If you work for a software company and your company has patents then keep in mind that by using React you are giving Facebook a free license to your entire patent portfolio.
  - spicyj 11y ago
    > If React didn't have an explicit patent grant then there would be an implicit grant which does not have any retaliation clauses, and cannot be revoked. I'm not a lawyer. My understanding is that this is hypothetically possible but stands on shaky legal ground and has no legal precedent. Whether or not an implicit grant exists seems to depend on who you ask. This is apparently why GPLv3 includes an explicit grant. It could also be that there aren't any patents that cover React. I don't personally know of any that do.
    - interlocutor 11y ago
      If React doesn't have any patents then Facebook could solve this issue by removing the "grant" or by removing the strong retaliation clause from the "grant". I am not a lawyer either, but I think the idea of implicit grant is compatible with common sense.
      - rwjwjuwjudf 11y ago
        The link you gave doesn't use the word implicit and actually says: > Wherever possible, make sure you have an explicit license to any necessary patents held by the licensor. Then it goes on to distinguish between weak and strong grants. I think you mean weak, not implicit. AFAICT, there isn't an implicit grant with patent law, because the default is that you're infringing without an explicit grant.
        swhipple 11y ago
        The link in the original post was about strong vs weak retaliation clauses in an explicit license, but the parent is also talking about implicit patent licenses, which do have some case law and opinions surrounding them in the United States [1]. The theory behind implicit patent licenses is that the licensee (often the buyer) will have some idea about which rights they have to the thing they are licensing, absent any other agreement. For a software license like the 3-clause BSD, this means that if they are licensing the software from the holder of the patent, they can reasonably expect to not subsequently be sued for infringing on the patent while following the terms of the license. Omitting any kind of patent mention from your product's license, and later claiming infringement for reasonably expected use, would look subversive and generally be unconvincing. [1] http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Implicit_patent_licence#USA http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Implicit_patent_licence#USA
  - Lazare 11y ago
    > If React didn't have an explicit "grant" there would be an implicit grant. Please provide a citation to any court decision so holding, or to the text of any law that clearly implies this. The reality is that a couple of lawyers have come up with the speculative theory that maybe, some day, a court will read the plain text of the BSD license as granting an implicit patent license because some of the words its uses are kind of similar to the words used in a seemingly unrelated law. This theory is...tenuous at best. More to the point, it's just a theory about what a hypothetical court might rule one day in a hypothetical case. (Plus, I mean, hypothetically the court might rule that an explicit grant can't limit the rights granted by an implicit grant in this case. Since we're just speculating about what new rules a future court might hypothetically make.)
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
abritinthebay 11y ago
Yes, a year ago. They weren't potentially dangerous in the first place really but they updated them after the feedback to be much more explicit and literally no-one appears to have issue with it anymore.
- ergo14 11y ago
  What about google, did they started using react?
morgante 11y ago
It's really depressing that every single thread about React has to beat this confused dead horse.
- ergo14 11y ago
  The "grant" text suddenly disappeared from the source code? I'd say it is depressing that people don't care.

Has Facebook removed the potentially dangerous patent restrictions? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8985541 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8985541

by zactato 11y ago

Has Facebook removed the potentially dangerous patent restrictions? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8985541 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8985541

spicyj 11y ago

We updated the patent grant to be less restrictive in response to community feedback about a year ago (several months after the discussion you linked): https://github.com/facebook/react/commit/b8ba8c83f318b84e42933f6928f231dc0918f864 https://github.com/facebook/react/commit/b8ba8c83f318b84e429... Since that change I've heard few complaints, and I know for a fact that several large companies who were previously unwilling to use it are now content with the language.

interlocutor 11y ago
I noticed you italicized the word grant. In reality the "grant" isn't granting; it is taking away. Let me explain: If React didn't have an explicit "grant" there would be an implicit grant. Is the explicit grant better than an implicit grant? It isn't because the explicit grant has what is known as a strong retaliation clause. More info on weak vs strong retaliation clauses: http://www.rosenlaw.com/lj9.htm http://www.rosenlaw.com/lj9.htm React's patent "grant" gives you a license to React's patents. This sounds like a good thing, however, the "grant" has a "strong retaliation clause" which says that if you make any sort of patent claim against Facebook this patent grant automatically terminates. Which means Facebook can now sue you for patent infringement for using React. You may think this is no worse than not having a patent grant at all. But that's not the case. If React didn't have an explicit patent grant then there would be an implicit grant which does not have any retaliation clauses, and cannot be revoked. If you work for a software company and your company has patents then keep in mind that by using React you are giving Facebook a free license to your entire patent portfolio.
- spicyj 11y ago
  > If React didn't have an explicit patent grant then there would be an implicit grant which does not have any retaliation clauses, and cannot be revoked. I'm not a lawyer. My understanding is that this is hypothetically possible but stands on shaky legal ground and has no legal precedent. Whether or not an implicit grant exists seems to depend on who you ask. This is apparently why GPLv3 includes an explicit grant. It could also be that there aren't any patents that cover React. I don't personally know of any that do.
  - interlocutor 11y ago
    If React doesn't have any patents then Facebook could solve this issue by removing the "grant" or by removing the strong retaliation clause from the "grant". I am not a lawyer either, but I think the idea of implicit grant is compatible with common sense.
    - rwjwjuwjudf 11y ago
      The link you gave doesn't use the word implicit and actually says: > Wherever possible, make sure you have an explicit license to any necessary patents held by the licensor. Then it goes on to distinguish between weak and strong grants. I think you mean weak, not implicit. AFAICT, there isn't an implicit grant with patent law, because the default is that you're infringing without an explicit grant.
      - swhipple 11y ago
        The link in the original post was about strong vs weak retaliation clauses in an explicit license, but the parent is also talking about implicit patent licenses, which do have some case law and opinions surrounding them in the United States [1]. The theory behind implicit patent licenses is that the licensee (often the buyer) will have some idea about which rights they have to the thing they are licensing, absent any other agreement. For a software license like the 3-clause BSD, this means that if they are licensing the software from the holder of the patent, they can reasonably expect to not subsequently be sued for infringing on the patent while following the terms of the license. Omitting any kind of patent mention from your product's license, and later claiming infringement for reasonably expected use, would look subversive and generally be unconvincing. [1] http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Implicit_patent_licence#USA http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Implicit_patent_licence#USA
- Lazare 11y ago
  > If React didn't have an explicit "grant" there would be an implicit grant. Please provide a citation to any court decision so holding, or to the text of any law that clearly implies this. The reality is that a couple of lawyers have come up with the speculative theory that maybe, some day, a court will read the plain text of the BSD license as granting an implicit patent license because some of the words its uses are kind of similar to the words used in a seemingly unrelated law. This theory is...tenuous at best. More to the point, it's just a theory about what a hypothetical court might rule one day in a hypothetical case. (Plus, I mean, hypothetically the court might rule that an explicit grant can't limit the rights granted by an implicit grant in this case. Since we're just speculating about what new rules a future court might hypothetically make.)
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

abritinthebay 11y ago

Yes, a year ago. They weren't potentially dangerous in the first place really but they updated them after the feedback to be much more explicit and literally no-one appears to have issue with it anymore.

ergo14 11y ago
What about google, did they started using react?

morgante 11y ago

It's really depressing that every single thread about React has to beat this confused dead horse.

ergo14 11y ago
The "grant" text suddenly disappeared from the source code? I'd say it is depressing that people don't care.