3 ms·
The opening lines of the BSD license: > Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the followi
by kevin_b_er 9y ago
The opening lines of the BSD license:
> Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
So do I have the permission of "redistribution and use" in the BSD license or don't I?
If yes, the patent license was unnecessary, as I've got a license to copy and use the software from the BSD license.
If no, then it isn't the BSD license anymore.
I believe facebook's lawyers intended the latter, the no answer.
So no one can redistribute React under BSD, as they cannot proof the permissions of the BSD license. Therefor React is not BSD licensed.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- kybernetikos 9y agoYou've got copyright rights to use it, but that doesn't mean you have patent rights to use it. This is true of BSD licensed software in general, the author can grant the copyright to copy and use it because they own that, but there may be patents that cover the relevant area which they may not own and so they cannot grant a patent license. As far as I know the BSD license is not normally thought to contain an implicit grant of patents that the author holds. If companies thought that it did, they would probably set up separate companies to funnel all their open source contributions through so that there could be no misunderstanding about patent licenses. Regardless, if I thought I was depending on an implicit patent license that had never been tested in court for some important piece of software my company was using, I'd be more nervous than if that patent license were explicit.