5 ms·
> The way I read it, it's not evil. No, it's evil, full stop. Facebook's patent policy means, in no uncertain terms: if you have a patent, they have a worldwi
by erichocean 10y ago
> The way I read it, it's not evil.
No, it's evil, full stop.
Facebook's patent policy means, in no uncertain terms: if you have a patent, they have a worldwide, royalty-free right to use it. Don't want to give them that? Well, until you remove all usage of Facebook's "open source" code, that's the situation.
Note: RocksDB also has this problem, which means CockroachDB is also infected. Tread carefully.
-----
Note to downvoters: No one has a problem with Apache 2-style patent-retaliation provisions. Facebook could solve this problem TODAY by switching to that.
They don't because they don't want to retaliate, they want access to unrelated patents from third-parties at zero cost, with a credible threat to damage those third-parties if they want to retain their unrelated patent rights. There's literally no other reason for Facebook to demand terms beyond Apache 2 than to do what I just described.
The Apache 2 license protects Facebook and third-parties and is 100% ethical. Facebook's patent position is not, for the reasons I've stated above. The community, IMO, should shun Facebook LOUDLY until they relent and stop this bullshit.
-----
Update 2: It's actually worse, because Facebook tends to do this bullshit on stuff like RocksDB and React which are incorporated in other software that you use to run your business.
Using a React-based dashboard widget for your ElasticSearch cluster? Good luck suing Facebook for patent-infringement, because guess what? You agreed to let them infringe by using it, even though you didn't intend to.
Facebook's patent policy requires constant policing to avoid. Like I said: EVIL.
- nashashmi 10y agoIt also means that you can infringe on all Facebook patents and instigate them into suing you. Then, because they are the instigator, you can sue them based on your patent portfolio. And not lose your license for using react.
- ignasl 10y ago> Good luck suing Facebook for patent-infringement Protecting from patent lawsuits is not evil as SW patents are bullish anyway. No one except maybe some patent trolls or some other big companies will sue Facebook for patent infrigment and if they do then this is a pretty clever defence. If you really really have something really really unique invented (which is really really unlikely) then just don't use anything by Facebook.
- erichocean 10y ago> Protecting from patent lawsuits is not evil as SW patents Facebook makes hardware and runs a business, and their "we get all your patents for free" stance applies to all patents, not just software patents.
- nixos 10y agoAre you permitted to counter-sue if FB trolls _you_?
- nindalf 10y agoYes you are. Facebook's patent grant explicitly allows the entity they're suing to counter-claims without losing the right to use Facebook's code.
- maxsavin 10y agoTo your point: 'The initial public release of React in May 2013 used a standard Apache License 2.0. In October 2014, React 0.12.0 replaced this with a 3-clause BSD license and added a separate PATENTS text file that permits usage of any Facebook patents related to the software.' https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/React_(JavaScript_library) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/React_(JavaScript_library)
- ec109685 10y agoCan you explain the additional patent exposure you face by using React? If I use a clean room clone of React, how does that protect me from Facebook suing me down the line? In fact, by not using React, you are more vulnerable to a hypothetical suit by them given you won't have been granted by them rights to their patents. Their license gives you everything the BSD license gives you, full stop. Then it additionally gives you temporary access to all of facebook's patents related to it. The only thing you give up to get the additional patent license is the right to sue them for patent infringement. If that isn't valuable, then just use the software under the BSD license.