4 ms·

Heather Meeker is one of top lawyers in Open Source...most of the other people in this conversation don't have a background in this and should be ignored

echelon 9y ago
Just because IANAL, does that mean I can't have a strong opinion and voice on the matter? This type of license is worrisome if other companies begin to adopt it.
icebraining 9y ago
In terms of legal facts, yes. But that's the start of the conversation, not its end.
eveningcoffee 9y ago
>I do represent Facebook on open source matters, but I did not draft the BSD+patents license grant. Beside, this is not a matter of law but matter of philosophy.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
ABCLAW 9y ago
Heather Meeker is a lawyer who represents Facebook. I have a background in this (although I am not your lawyer, so please do not take anything in this post as legal advice). The license is a serious issue for a subset of software companies and private developers. Interestingly, most of the posters correctly identify the core concern. If you've invested significant resources into developing React projects, have IP, and Facebook infringes your IP, you're in very hot water. Most businesses aren't competing with Facebook or patenting business critical innovations in spheres Facebook will be operating in. Using React in all of those cases is a non-issue. For these people, the license's restrictions seem very minimal, so dumping React in the Open Source bucket seems reasonable. For others, this restriction is an existential threat. This is why other people have an issue with the license being considered open source.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- DannyBee 9y ago
  "Heather Meeker is a lawyer who represents Facebook. " As mentioned, Heather has represented a ridiculously long list of clients, including many strong competitors to Facebook. If she says it's her personal opinion, you can take that to the bank. In fact, given how many client she's represented, i'd say she's probably less biased than most folks. She's pretty much seen and dealt with it all.
  - ABCLAW 9y ago
    I don't agree with your premise, that a variety of clients makes a representative inoculated against bias. If anything, it makes certain biases more pernicious as you examine the circumstances of your selected client roster while increasingly discounting other stakeholders. I've seen this bias arise in senior practitioners with successful practices across industry groups. In any event, her person is somewhat tangential to the important point: the react license is a substantial issue to a subset of people and organizations.
- slight 9y ago
  Could you explain to me how it's worse than if React were released without the patents grant like most OSS is? It seems like you'd have no patents grant then anyway and you'd already in the position you're in now if you sue Facebook for patent infringement (and are using React).
  - ABCLAW 9y ago
    Sure. There are a number of issues, but I'll highlight a trio to give you the flavor. The first is with the OSS appellation, which should rely upon the permissiveness of the corpus of rights surrounding the work. React claims that it is OSS, but functionally the corpus is very restrictive. The second is that the grant itself removes any question as to whether there's an implied patent license in a typical OSS license. This lowers FB's barriers to litigating against people using react using patents as well as copyright. The multiplication of rights afforded to IP holders is an issue best discussed elsewhere, though. The third issue is that even if FB would never weaponize their React patent portfolio, prospective coders may avoid using the framework even if it is the best suited to task for fear of FB extending into their industry. This is not efficient for either party.
pg_is_a_butt 9y ago
anuccio is one of the worst posters in hacker news... most of the other people in this conversation are also idiots. you should all be ignored. either the license is BSD or it isn't... if it isn't, then don't say it is. lawsuits are for ladies. #boom
camus2 9y ago
If they are not your lawyer they don't represent your interests but they absolutely represent FB interests since they work with Facebook. What should be ignored is their opinion obviously there is a blatant conflict of interest here.

echelon 9y ago

Just because IANAL, does that mean I can't have a strong opinion and voice on the matter? This type of license is worrisome if other companies begin to adopt it.

icebraining 9y ago

In terms of legal facts, yes. But that's the start of the conversation, not its end.

eveningcoffee 9y ago

>I do represent Facebook on open source matters, but I did not draft the BSD+patents license grant. Beside, this is not a matter of law but matter of philosophy.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

ABCLAW 9y ago

Heather Meeker is a lawyer who represents Facebook. I have a background in this (although I am not your lawyer, so please do not take anything in this post as legal advice). The license is a serious issue for a subset of software companies and private developers. Interestingly, most of the posters correctly identify the core concern. If you've invested significant resources into developing React projects, have IP, and Facebook infringes your IP, you're in very hot water. Most businesses aren't competing with Facebook or patenting business critical innovations in spheres Facebook will be operating in. Using React in all of those cases is a non-issue. For these people, the license's restrictions seem very minimal, so dumping React in the Open Source bucket seems reasonable. For others, this restriction is an existential threat. This is why other people have an issue with the license being considered open source.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
DannyBee 9y ago
"Heather Meeker is a lawyer who represents Facebook. " As mentioned, Heather has represented a ridiculously long list of clients, including many strong competitors to Facebook. If she says it's her personal opinion, you can take that to the bank. In fact, given how many client she's represented, i'd say she's probably less biased than most folks. She's pretty much seen and dealt with it all.
- ABCLAW 9y ago
  I don't agree with your premise, that a variety of clients makes a representative inoculated against bias. If anything, it makes certain biases more pernicious as you examine the circumstances of your selected client roster while increasingly discounting other stakeholders. I've seen this bias arise in senior practitioners with successful practices across industry groups. In any event, her person is somewhat tangential to the important point: the react license is a substantial issue to a subset of people and organizations.
slight 9y ago
Could you explain to me how it's worse than if React were released without the patents grant like most OSS is? It seems like you'd have no patents grant then anyway and you'd already in the position you're in now if you sue Facebook for patent infringement (and are using React).
- ABCLAW 9y ago
  Sure. There are a number of issues, but I'll highlight a trio to give you the flavor. The first is with the OSS appellation, which should rely upon the permissiveness of the corpus of rights surrounding the work. React claims that it is OSS, but functionally the corpus is very restrictive. The second is that the grant itself removes any question as to whether there's an implied patent license in a typical OSS license. This lowers FB's barriers to litigating against people using react using patents as well as copyright. The multiplication of rights afforded to IP holders is an issue best discussed elsewhere, though. The third issue is that even if FB would never weaponize their React patent portfolio, prospective coders may avoid using the framework even if it is the best suited to task for fear of FB extending into their industry. This is not efficient for either party.

pg_is_a_butt 9y ago

anuccio is one of the worst posters in hacker news... most of the other people in this conversation are also idiots. you should all be ignored. either the license is BSD or it isn't... if it isn't, then don't say it is. lawsuits are for ladies. #boom

camus2 9y ago

If they are not your lawyer they don't represent your interests but they absolutely represent FB interests since they work with Facebook. What should be ignored is their opinion obviously there is a blatant conflict of interest here.