7 ms·

Your license to use React.js can be revoked if you compete with Facebook

97 points by velmu 10y ago

tudorw 10y ago
I was never quite persuaded to tip in so how do devs who did feel about this approach, does not apply no bother? Does apply but won't compete? Does apply and uncertain of future? "This is the reason why both Google and Microsoft employees are not allowed to use React.js in their work. " is that true ?
- spicyj 10y ago
  Google employees formerly were not allowed to use React but now are after the patent grant was changed (in response to their feedback). I know of several teams at Microsoft using React Native, so I assume there's no concern there either.
  - tudorw 10y ago
    okay, that's reassuring, thanks.
    - jacob_henry 10y ago
      Not so quickly. There is no verifiable source for to this. Are there any google team publicly announcing react in their tech stack ?
      - spicyj 10y ago
        I guess I'm not verifiable enough? What about Paul Irish? https://twitter.com/paul_irish/status/754864479460929536 https://twitter.com/paul_irish/status/754864479460929536
calinet6 10y ago
The spirit of the actual license appears to be toward specifically preventing patent litigation against Facebook _and contributors and related entities to React itself_. Assigning it to "competing with Facebook" in general seems a little broad. IANAL, but this could be seen as a needed protection and Facebook playing it safe in the interest of both itself and its open source contributors, kind of saying "if you contribute to, use, or are involved in React, everyone has to play nice and mutually agree not to sue each other over software patents. If you do, you don't get to benefit." Then again, you could take it the other way, and assume it could be used on the offensive. But I think there would be enough pressures against that type of use. Still, sure, consult a lawyer. Edit: the last part seems to grant some pretty wide freedoms, protecting your right to use React even if Facebook sues you over a patent unrelated to React, so with that in there, I think it's making it abundantly clear that this clause is about protecting React from patent litigation. Seems solid.
nemothekid 10y ago
I remember there was a ton of hoopla about this when React was originally released - but I thought it was resolved? Am I remembering that right?
foota 10y ago
This seems to be a complete misreading of the clause, which focuses on patent claims.
ape4 10y ago
Perhaps they should put out a non-legalease version of the license.
spicyj 10y ago
I work on React. I'm not a lawyer so I won't try to paraphrase the license -- I actually think the wording is pretty simple already -- but to be clear, only the patent grant might terminate if you were to sue Facebook; the BSD license that the code is provided under remains valid regardless. The author's claim that Google and Microsoft employees are unable to use React is false. I know there are teams at both companies using React and React Native. (It is true that Google was not happy with an older version of the patent grant, but we updated it in response to their feedback.)
- jhalstead 10y ago
  Just curious, do you know which specific teams at Google are using it or just that there are some?
  - spicyj 10y ago
    Not sure, sorry. I know that the Firebase team was interested but I'm not sure if they ended up using it.
- pbreit 10y ago
  And any non-use of React by Google & Microsoft is almost certainly a competitive thing. Like I doubt Facebook or Microsoft use much Angular but has nothing to so with the licensing.
- sandmansandine 10y ago
  I'm pretty certain some teams at Microsoft are working on react https://blogs.windows.com/buildingapps/2016/04/13/react-native-on-the-universal-windows-platform/ https://blogs.windows.com/buildingapps/2016/04/13/react-nati...
  - jacob_henry 10y ago
    Not for long after the license update
    - 10y ago
bsbechtel 10y ago
This seems like the open source licensing equivalent of mutually assured destruction with nuclear weapons. If Facebook were to aggressively pull the rug out from a competitor because of React licensing, I think the effects for the industry as a whole would be far worse than the threat some startup posed to them.
jake-low 10y ago
Here's some more discussion from a previous HN submission: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8985541 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8985541
maxsavin 10y ago
It sure would be nice to get a real lawyers take on this.
ilostmykeys 10y ago
B.S.
rsyring 10y ago
That title and article is very misleading. A) The React license is a 3 clause BSD license. https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/LICENSE https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/LICENSE It has absolutely no custom restrictions in it. In addition to the license for using react, they B) grant an additional patent related license (https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/PATENTS https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/PATENTS) such that if you use React and React "infringes" on a Facebook patent, Facebook is additionally licensing the patent to you. In this way, not only are you licensed to use the software (React), but you are licensed to use any Facebook patents that React might infringe/use. However, if you decide to sue Facebook for patent infringement (of any kind), they are going to revoke your license to their PATENTS. This only matters if the software (React) actually infringes the PATENTS. Either way, you still technically have a license (3 clause BSD) to React...but, you could be violating a Facebook patent by using it. It's important to keep in mind that there are two different types of Intellectual Property in view here. Software licenses and patent licenses. Theoretically, you could use some software Y under the BSD license and have some third party X sue you because Y violates a patent (even though you didn't write Y and are only using it). Facebook is being generous IMO by saying both A) you can use our software and B) if we have patents that the software benefits from we also license those to you provided C) you do not sue us for patent violations, in which case we revoke B (but not A). So, going back to the article, the license to use React would not be revoked and it has nothing to do with competing with React. It is possible that if you sued Facebook for patent infringement AND Facebook claimed that React benefited from it's patents, that Facebook could now sue you for patent infringement b/c you use React. But, if you sue any big company for patent infringement, they are also going to look at their portfolio of patents to see what you might be infringing and will counter-sue. So, in that case, I don't feel like Facebook is really being contrary here. They are basically saying, "As long as you don't sue us for patent infringement, we promise not to sue you for any patent infringement related to our open source software (including React). By doing this, we are hoping you will take advantage of the software we have put out there in the OSS world and alleviate any patent fears you might have. However, if you choose to sue us for patent infringement, we revoke this promise, and are going to treat you just like any other Joe Schmo." IMO, Facebook is going out of their way to make it possible for others to benefit from their OSS software by granting not only a generous software license but a related patent license as well. For the article to misconstrue this as a license revocation if you decide to "compete" with them is pretty disingenuous.
rosser 10y ago
This is just patent-suit MAD ("If you sue, or counter-sue, us for patent-y stuff, your license to use the patents underlying React is forfeit."), not "You can't use React to do Facebook-y things." There is absolutely nothing in the grant of patent rights that supports the second notion.
peterbonney 10y ago
IANAL but the plain-English reading of the license is extremely straightforward: the license is void if the licensee engages in patent litigation against Facebook or React contributors. That's narrow, clear and (IMO) sensible. This entire article is just pure misinformation.
bunchesofdonald 10y ago
We were beginning to use React for a few things at my company, but we had our legal counsel review the license and they essentially said to use something else if we could. They weren't really worried about it, but enough so to advise avoiding it.
chrisabrams 10y ago
If I was going to compete with Facebook I wouldn't use React anyway.
cyphar 10y ago
Sigh. Isn't this why Apache 2 and GPLv3 have patent provisions, so we don't have to reinvent free software licenses for projects. Even if it isn't a big deal, I wouldn't trust a patent license that isn't FSF approved.
meira 10y ago
This is really bad, but I'm going to use it to compete with Facebook. I hope they sue me, it would be great PR in Brazil.
- jacob_henry 10y ago
  Nice PR try for reactjs.
jacob_henry 10y ago
Thanks for this discussion. Why invest 100's of hour on a framework which might sue me?. Gonna use angular for now and never look back facebook's libs unless i have no option.

97 points by velmu 10y ago

I was never quite persuaded to tip in so how do devs who did feel about this approach, does not apply no bother? Does apply but won't compete? Does apply and uncertain of future? "This is the reason why both Google and Microsoft employees are not allowed to use React.js in their work. " is that true ?

spicyj 10y ago
Google employees formerly were not allowed to use React but now are after the patent grant was changed (in response to their feedback). I know of several teams at Microsoft using React Native, so I assume there's no concern there either.
- tudorw 10y ago
  okay, that's reassuring, thanks.
  - jacob_henry 10y ago
    Not so quickly. There is no verifiable source for to this. Are there any google team publicly announcing react in their tech stack ?
    - spicyj 10y ago
      I guess I'm not verifiable enough? What about Paul Irish? https://twitter.com/paul_irish/status/754864479460929536 https://twitter.com/paul_irish/status/754864479460929536

calinet6 10y ago

The spirit of the actual license appears to be toward specifically preventing patent litigation against Facebook _and contributors and related entities to React itself_. Assigning it to "competing with Facebook" in general seems a little broad. IANAL, but this could be seen as a needed protection and Facebook playing it safe in the interest of both itself and its open source contributors, kind of saying "if you contribute to, use, or are involved in React, everyone has to play nice and mutually agree not to sue each other over software patents. If you do, you don't get to benefit." Then again, you could take it the other way, and assume it could be used on the offensive. But I think there would be enough pressures against that type of use. Still, sure, consult a lawyer. Edit: the last part seems to grant some pretty wide freedoms, protecting your right to use React even if Facebook sues you over a patent unrelated to React, so with that in there, I think it's making it abundantly clear that this clause is about protecting React from patent litigation. Seems solid.

nemothekid 10y ago

I remember there was a ton of hoopla about this when React was originally released - but I thought it was resolved? Am I remembering that right?

foota 10y ago

This seems to be a complete misreading of the clause, which focuses on patent claims.

ape4 10y ago

Perhaps they should put out a non-legalease version of the license.

spicyj 10y ago

I work on React. I'm not a lawyer so I won't try to paraphrase the license -- I actually think the wording is pretty simple already -- but to be clear, only the patent grant might terminate if you were to sue Facebook; the BSD license that the code is provided under remains valid regardless. The author's claim that Google and Microsoft employees are unable to use React is false. I know there are teams at both companies using React and React Native. (It is true that Google was not happy with an older version of the patent grant, but we updated it in response to their feedback.)

jhalstead 10y ago
Just curious, do you know which specific teams at Google are using it or just that there are some?
- spicyj 10y ago
  Not sure, sorry. I know that the Firebase team was interested but I'm not sure if they ended up using it.
pbreit 10y ago
And any non-use of React by Google & Microsoft is almost certainly a competitive thing. Like I doubt Facebook or Microsoft use much Angular but has nothing to so with the licensing.
sandmansandine 10y ago
I'm pretty certain some teams at Microsoft are working on react https://blogs.windows.com/buildingapps/2016/04/13/react-native-on-the-universal-windows-platform/ https://blogs.windows.com/buildingapps/2016/04/13/react-nati...
- jacob_henry 10y ago
  Not for long after the license update
  - 10y ago

bsbechtel 10y ago

This seems like the open source licensing equivalent of mutually assured destruction with nuclear weapons. If Facebook were to aggressively pull the rug out from a competitor because of React licensing, I think the effects for the industry as a whole would be far worse than the threat some startup posed to them.

jake-low 10y ago

Here's some more discussion from a previous HN submission: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8985541 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8985541

maxsavin 10y ago

It sure would be nice to get a real lawyers take on this.

ilostmykeys 10y ago

B.S.

rsyring 10y ago

That title and article is very misleading. A) The React license is a 3 clause BSD license. https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/LICENSE https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/LICENSE It has absolutely no custom restrictions in it. In addition to the license for using react, they B) grant an additional patent related license (https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/PATENTS https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/PATENTS) such that if you use React and React "infringes" on a Facebook patent, Facebook is additionally licensing the patent to you. In this way, not only are you licensed to use the software (React), but you are licensed to use any Facebook patents that React might infringe/use. However, if you decide to sue Facebook for patent infringement (of any kind), they are going to revoke your license to their PATENTS. This only matters if the software (React) actually infringes the PATENTS. Either way, you still technically have a license (3 clause BSD) to React...but, you could be violating a Facebook patent by using it. It's important to keep in mind that there are two different types of Intellectual Property in view here. Software licenses and patent licenses. Theoretically, you could use some software Y under the BSD license and have some third party X sue you because Y violates a patent (even though you didn't write Y and are only using it). Facebook is being generous IMO by saying both A) you can use our software and B) if we have patents that the software benefits from we also license those to you provided C) you do not sue us for patent violations, in which case we revoke B (but not A). So, going back to the article, the license to use React would not be revoked and it has nothing to do with competing with React. It is possible that if you sued Facebook for patent infringement AND Facebook claimed that React benefited from it's patents, that Facebook could now sue you for patent infringement b/c you use React. But, if you sue any big company for patent infringement, they are also going to look at their portfolio of patents to see what you might be infringing and will counter-sue. So, in that case, I don't feel like Facebook is really being contrary here. They are basically saying, "As long as you don't sue us for patent infringement, we promise not to sue you for any patent infringement related to our open source software (including React). By doing this, we are hoping you will take advantage of the software we have put out there in the OSS world and alleviate any patent fears you might have. However, if you choose to sue us for patent infringement, we revoke this promise, and are going to treat you just like any other Joe Schmo." IMO, Facebook is going out of their way to make it possible for others to benefit from their OSS software by granting not only a generous software license but a related patent license as well. For the article to misconstrue this as a license revocation if you decide to "compete" with them is pretty disingenuous.

rosser 10y ago

This is just patent-suit MAD ("If you sue, or counter-sue, us for patent-y stuff, your license to use the patents underlying React is forfeit."), not "You can't use React to do Facebook-y things." There is absolutely nothing in the grant of patent rights that supports the second notion.

peterbonney 10y ago

IANAL but the plain-English reading of the license is extremely straightforward: the license is void if the licensee engages in patent litigation against Facebook or React contributors. That's narrow, clear and (IMO) sensible. This entire article is just pure misinformation.

bunchesofdonald 10y ago

We were beginning to use React for a few things at my company, but we had our legal counsel review the license and they essentially said to use something else if we could. They weren't really worried about it, but enough so to advise avoiding it.

chrisabrams 10y ago

If I was going to compete with Facebook I wouldn't use React anyway.

cyphar 10y ago

Sigh. Isn't this why Apache 2 and GPLv3 have patent provisions, so we don't have to reinvent free software licenses for projects. Even if it isn't a big deal, I wouldn't trust a patent license that isn't FSF approved.

meira 10y ago

This is really bad, but I'm going to use it to compete with Facebook. I hope they sue me, it would be great PR in Brazil.

jacob_henry 10y ago
Nice PR try for reactjs.

jacob_henry 10y ago

Thanks for this discussion. Why invest 100's of hour on a framework which might sue me?. Gonna use angular for now and never look back facebook's libs unless i have no option.