I'm not a lawyer, but perhaps Facebook's BSD+Patent license is not even open source. It's tempting to consider the BSD license independent of the additional pa

I'm not a lawyer, but perhaps Facebook's BSD+Patent license is not even open source. It's tempting to consider the BSD license independent of the additional patent license. However, the OSI has not approved CC0 as being open source precisely because it expressly reserves patent rights [0]. In the OSI's justification, permissive MIT and BSD licenses may provide implicit patent license, so by themselves they are open source. However, like CC0, BSD+Patents expressly exclude this possibility. Indeed, Facebook's licensing FAQ deems the combined work of the BSD+patents to be the license [1]. Further, recent court case has shown that these licenses are not simply copyright or patent statements, but can be actual contracts [2]. Hence, we have to consider the BSD text + the patents file text as the combined license. This license is not symmetric and hence may violate OSI license standards. I've made this comment in the facebook bug report, https://github.com/facebook/react/issues/10191 https://github.com/facebook/react/issues/10191 [0] https://opensource.org/faq#cc-zero https://opensource.org/faq#cc-zero [1] https://code.facebook.com/pages/850928938376556 https://code.facebook.com/pages/850928938376556 [2] https://perens.com/blog/2017/05/28/understanding-the-gpl-is-a-contract-court-case/ https://perens.com/blog/2017/05/28/understanding-the-gpl-is-...