12 ms·

> We've been looking for ways around this and have reached out to ASF to see if we could try to work with them, but have come up empty. There's a pretty obviou

> We've been looking for ways around this and have reached out to ASF to see if we could try to work with them, but have come up empty. There's a pretty obvious solution to this: relicense React. The fact that Facebook isn't even considering that is a pretty strong indication that they "weaponized" their license on purpose. > To this point, though, we haven't done a good job of explaining the reasons behind our BSD + Patents license. I think we already understand the reasoning behind it. > As our business has become successful, we've become a larger target for meritless patent litigation. And the solution you chose stops merit-ful litigation as well. > We respect third party IP, including patents, and expect others to respect our IP too. Clearly you don't, because you've intentionally designed a license to allow you carte blanche to violate other companies' patents if they're dependent enough upon React to not be able to easily stop using it.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
cbuq 9y ago
They need to stop referring to React as open source software. This is proprietary source code. > We believe that if this license were widely adopted, it could actually reduce meritless litigation for all adopters, and we want to work with others to explore this possibility. They do not give a pathway for litigation with merit. This is a patent weapon.
- kbenson 9y ago
  No company assumes a meritorious lawsuit against them exists. Planning for it is ridiculous. Don't take that as a defense of this type of license though.
  - cbuq 9y ago
    I agree, in a perfect word, I could take Facebook's word that "We respect third party IP, including patents, and expect others to respect our IP too." I just can't unsee the way this theoretically could allow Facebook to partake in patent infringement without fear of retribution.
    - kbenson 9y ago
      Yeah, pointing out how they would never plan for a meritorious lawsuit isn't really defending them, it's pointing out that the argument that they even might requires a lot of assumptions of good faith on Facebook's part that make no sense. It's possible that there were two groups in FB that were for this, some that were naive enough to just not understand it, and some that totally understood it and let the others continue with their misconceptions. I don't believe there existed a group that actually understood it and it's ramifications and thought it was benign.
    - nojvek 9y ago
      I don’t get the obsession with React. It’s a great concept but vdom isn’t hard. Many great alternatives preact, inferno. Slightly different ones like snabdom. We use virtual-jade which allows us to build templates in jade as clean functions. Facebook has gone too far with React and its Trojan patent clause. So easy to get away from it though with smaller, faster and more focused libraries.
  - eridius 9y ago
    No company hopes or expects a meritorious lawsuit against them to exist. But, and especially concerning patents, assuming one can't exist is pure folly. And designing your own licenses in a way that prevents someone else from initiating a meritorious lawsuit against you seems quite intentional, especially since they refused to back down once it was pointed out (and especially because there was already precedent in open source licenses for doing this in a sane way, e.g. the Apache License, Version 2.0, and presumably others too).
- azr79 9y ago
  Is Angular proprietary too?
- JRITSRob 9y ago
  > They need to stop referring to React as open source software. This is proprietary source code. Somewhere along the line we lost the distinction between "Open Source" and "Source Opened".
jaredklewis 9y ago
I would patiently beg everyone to employ some basic reasoning. Situation A: React is licensed under BSD + PATENTS. You sue Facebook for infringing your widget patent. Turns out Facebook has a patent for something in react. They revoke your grant and counter sue you for infringing that patent. Long legal battle ensues. Situation A: React is licensed under just BSD. You sue Facebook for infringing your widget patent. Turns out Facebook has a patent for something in react. You never had a grant so Facebook counter sues you for infringing that patent. Long legal battle ensues. Can someone coldly explain how anyone anywhere would be helped in any way by removing the patents file? Or is the BSD license the problem?
- SAI_Peregrinus 9y ago
  People are worried about Situation C: React is licensed under BSD + PATENTS. You sue Facebook (or any corporate affiliate of theirs) for infringing on your widget patent. Facebook revokes your react license and counter sues you for copyright infringement. The patents clause doesn't have anything to do with any patents on parts of React. It's a way for Facebook to make it so that anyone who wants to sue them for patent infringement can't use React.
  - jaredklewis 9y ago
    Situation C is identical to situation A and B. You sue Facebook (or any affiliate) and Facebook counter sues you. You get counter sued whether or not there is a PATENTS file.
    - mygo 9y ago
      No it is NOT identical. In situation A/C (React is licensed under BSD + PATENTS), you have explicitly agreed to have what is essentially your lawful use of React immediately revoked if you sue Facebook for patent infringement. So you sue Facebook, and whether or not your suit is of merit: You have to immediately stop using React. This actually prevents people who are dependent on React from suing Facebook for patent infringement, since they'd basically have to remove any dependency on React before suing. And this emboldens Facebook to infringe on the patents of entities who have a dependency on React, where it would be a major undertaking for the React-dependent organization to cease the use of react. Remember, Facebook is saying they have this in place to prevent merit-less legal battles. But the way they've set it up, it's not a question of whether your suit has merit or not. Facebook is saying "Sue us for patent infringement, and you immediately give up your use of React. Period." So the court rules in your favor over an unrelated patent infringement case? Congrats you won that case, but you've still given up your use of React, because you sued Facebook. In situation B (React is licensed under just BSD), the patent rights necessary to use React are not written in explicit terms. You have made no explicit agreement to have your patent grant to use React revoked when you sue Facebook for patent infringement. In addition, without an explicit patent grant, a patent grant is implied with the license. You can at least continue to use React until the results of the court case.
Eridrus 9y ago
> Clearly you don't, because you've intentionally designed a license to allow you carte blanche to violate other companies' patents if they're dependent enough upon React to not be able to easily stop using it. I think it's pretty clear how disingenuous this is since they don't even constrain the patent revocation to IP lawsuits. If they were doing this in good faith they would want to scope this as tightly as they could, but this is clearly Facebook just trying to extract additional benefit from their OSS contributions.
- eridius 9y ago
  Nice username ;)

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

cbuq 9y ago

They need to stop referring to React as open source software. This is proprietary source code. > We believe that if this license were widely adopted, it could actually reduce meritless litigation for all adopters, and we want to work with others to explore this possibility. They do not give a pathway for litigation with merit. This is a patent weapon.

kbenson 9y ago
No company assumes a meritorious lawsuit against them exists. Planning for it is ridiculous. Don't take that as a defense of this type of license though.
- cbuq 9y ago
  I agree, in a perfect word, I could take Facebook's word that "We respect third party IP, including patents, and expect others to respect our IP too." I just can't unsee the way this theoretically could allow Facebook to partake in patent infringement without fear of retribution.
  - kbenson 9y ago
    Yeah, pointing out how they would never plan for a meritorious lawsuit isn't really defending them, it's pointing out that the argument that they even might requires a lot of assumptions of good faith on Facebook's part that make no sense. It's possible that there were two groups in FB that were for this, some that were naive enough to just not understand it, and some that totally understood it and let the others continue with their misconceptions. I don't believe there existed a group that actually understood it and it's ramifications and thought it was benign.
  - nojvek 9y ago
    I don’t get the obsession with React. It’s a great concept but vdom isn’t hard. Many great alternatives preact, inferno. Slightly different ones like snabdom. We use virtual-jade which allows us to build templates in jade as clean functions. Facebook has gone too far with React and its Trojan patent clause. So easy to get away from it though with smaller, faster and more focused libraries.
- eridius 9y ago
  No company hopes or expects a meritorious lawsuit against them to exist. But, and especially concerning patents, assuming one can't exist is pure folly. And designing your own licenses in a way that prevents someone else from initiating a meritorious lawsuit against you seems quite intentional, especially since they refused to back down once it was pointed out (and especially because there was already precedent in open source licenses for doing this in a sane way, e.g. the Apache License, Version 2.0, and presumably others too).
azr79 9y ago
Is Angular proprietary too?
JRITSRob 9y ago
> They need to stop referring to React as open source software. This is proprietary source code. Somewhere along the line we lost the distinction between "Open Source" and "Source Opened".

jaredklewis 9y ago

I would patiently beg everyone to employ some basic reasoning. Situation A: React is licensed under BSD + PATENTS. You sue Facebook for infringing your widget patent. Turns out Facebook has a patent for something in react. They revoke your grant and counter sue you for infringing that patent. Long legal battle ensues. Situation A: React is licensed under just BSD. You sue Facebook for infringing your widget patent. Turns out Facebook has a patent for something in react. You never had a grant so Facebook counter sues you for infringing that patent. Long legal battle ensues. Can someone coldly explain how anyone anywhere would be helped in any way by removing the patents file? Or is the BSD license the problem?

SAI_Peregrinus 9y ago
People are worried about Situation C: React is licensed under BSD + PATENTS. You sue Facebook (or any corporate affiliate of theirs) for infringing on your widget patent. Facebook revokes your react license and counter sues you for copyright infringement. The patents clause doesn't have anything to do with any patents on parts of React. It's a way for Facebook to make it so that anyone who wants to sue them for patent infringement can't use React.
- jaredklewis 9y ago
  Situation C is identical to situation A and B. You sue Facebook (or any affiliate) and Facebook counter sues you. You get counter sued whether or not there is a PATENTS file.
  - mygo 9y ago
    No it is NOT identical. In situation A/C (React is licensed under BSD + PATENTS), you have explicitly agreed to have what is essentially your lawful use of React immediately revoked if you sue Facebook for patent infringement. So you sue Facebook, and whether or not your suit is of merit: You have to immediately stop using React. This actually prevents people who are dependent on React from suing Facebook for patent infringement, since they'd basically have to remove any dependency on React before suing. And this emboldens Facebook to infringe on the patents of entities who have a dependency on React, where it would be a major undertaking for the React-dependent organization to cease the use of react. Remember, Facebook is saying they have this in place to prevent merit-less legal battles. But the way they've set it up, it's not a question of whether your suit has merit or not. Facebook is saying "Sue us for patent infringement, and you immediately give up your use of React. Period." So the court rules in your favor over an unrelated patent infringement case? Congrats you won that case, but you've still given up your use of React, because you sued Facebook. In situation B (React is licensed under just BSD), the patent rights necessary to use React are not written in explicit terms. You have made no explicit agreement to have your patent grant to use React revoked when you sue Facebook for patent infringement. In addition, without an explicit patent grant, a patent grant is implied with the license. You can at least continue to use React until the results of the court case.

Eridrus 9y ago

> Clearly you don't, because you've intentionally designed a license to allow you carte blanche to violate other companies' patents if they're dependent enough upon React to not be able to easily stop using it. I think it's pretty clear how disingenuous this is since they don't even constrain the patent revocation to IP lawsuits. If they were doing this in good faith they would want to scope this as tightly as they could, but this is clearly Facebook just trying to extract additional benefit from their OSS contributions.

eridius 9y ago
Nice username ;)