3 ms·

I think you should read the article again. What it argues is that the licence essentially means that you can't initiate a lawsuit against FB for infringing one

by gbuk2013 10y ago

I think you should read the article again. What it argues is that the licence essentially means that you can't initiate a lawsuit against FB for infringing one of your patents (which may have nothing to do with Reaft) without losing your React licence. Now whether that bothers you or not depends on your individual circumstances and the sanity of your particular legal jurisdiction, but it certainly would be something of interest to any corporate legal team.

dredmorbius 10y ago
A sufficient cross-branching of anti-patent-suit free software licenses would tend to make patent cases very, very difficult to pull off. If the revocation clause were broader, say, invoked for any patent suit against any contributor or user of the software, even better. That might fall afoul of antitrust or similar type restrictions, a not-uncommon problem with patent pooling type measures from what I've read and been told over the years.
tracker1 10y ago
Given that software patents probably shouldn't even be allowed, I'm okay with this. Also, it's not THAT different from the fairly popular Apache License 2.0's patent provisions.
- gbuk2013 10y ago
  Sorry but I think you are quite mistaken regarding Apache 2.0 - that termination clause is only triggered by patent claims relating to the "work" (i.e. the derivative software) whereas the React licence appears to cover any claims made against FB. It is a big difference! I agree that software patents should not be allowed and am fortunate to live in a mostly sane jurisdiction where they are mostly not allowed but that's not the case for everyone.
- brlewis 10y ago
  Who said anything about software? Facebook or one of its affiliates could infringe a hardware invention and suing them for it would have the exact same implications.
  - quadrangle 10y ago
    Patents shouldn't exist, period. Okay? Now the assertion is consistent. (Note: I'm not the earlier poster)
    - tracker1 10y ago
      I do think that the VAST majority of patents should never have been, or be granted in the first place... I do feel that there is some place for them, but very little is done that isn't so completely derivative, that it deserves them.
djsumdog 10y ago
It wouldn't matter in a place like New Zealand. Software patents are banned there.

dredmorbius 10y ago

A sufficient cross-branching of anti-patent-suit free software licenses would tend to make patent cases very, very difficult to pull off. If the revocation clause were broader, say, invoked for any patent suit against any contributor or user of the software, even better. That might fall afoul of antitrust or similar type restrictions, a not-uncommon problem with patent pooling type measures from what I've read and been told over the years.

tracker1 10y ago

Given that software patents probably shouldn't even be allowed, I'm okay with this. Also, it's not THAT different from the fairly popular Apache License 2.0's patent provisions.

gbuk2013 10y ago
Sorry but I think you are quite mistaken regarding Apache 2.0 - that termination clause is only triggered by patent claims relating to the "work" (i.e. the derivative software) whereas the React licence appears to cover any claims made against FB. It is a big difference! I agree that software patents should not be allowed and am fortunate to live in a mostly sane jurisdiction where they are mostly not allowed but that's not the case for everyone.
brlewis 10y ago
Who said anything about software? Facebook or one of its affiliates could infringe a hardware invention and suing them for it would have the exact same implications.
- quadrangle 10y ago
  Patents shouldn't exist, period. Okay? Now the assertion is consistent. (Note: I'm not the earlier poster)
  - tracker1 10y ago
    I do think that the VAST majority of patents should never have been, or be granted in the first place... I do feel that there is some place for them, but very little is done that isn't so completely derivative, that it deserves them.

djsumdog 10y ago

It wouldn't matter in a place like New Zealand. Software patents are banned there.