5 ms·

> then this license is dangerous. ...if Facebook has any patents. Which, in this case, it seems very likely they do not.

• sandGorgon 9y ago
  Point taken. But then the question really is - is Bucklescript so much more compelling than Typescript to be playing lawyer-lawyer ?
  • Lazare 9y ago
    Bucklescript is from Bloomberg, not Facebook.
• moron4hire 9y ago
  They have a lot more than I do http://patents.justia.com/company/facebook?list=patents http://patents.justia.com/company/facebook?list=patents
  • Lazare 9y ago
    Right, and how many of them are on React?
    • moron4hire 9y ago
      Doesn't matter. You're licenses to all of Facebook's software gets revoked for any patent claim against Facebook.
      • Lazare 9y ago
        > Doesn't matter. You're licenses to all of Facebook's software gets revoked for any patent claim against Facebook. Incorrect. Your license to their patents gets revoked. Hence why the React license "issue" is basically a paper tiger. (See, eg, https://medium.com/@dwalsh.sdlr/react-facebook-and-the-revokable-patent-license-why-its-a-paper-25c40c50b562 https://medium.com/@dwalsh.sdlr/react-facebook-and-the-revok...)
        • yawaramin 9y ago
          > Your license to their patents gets revoked. That's not my reading. From the patent grant: > Facebook ... grants to each recipient of the Software ... license under any Necessary Claims, to make, have made, use, sell, offer to sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Software. This doesn't say that they're granting you a license to their patents, just their software. In fact, about patents they go beyond to say: > ... no license is granted under Facebook’s rights in any patent claims that are infringed by (i) modifications to the Software made by you or any third party or (ii) the Software in combination with any software or other technology. IMO that's pretty clearly saying you don't actually have any license to their patents. Regarding the termination clause: > The license granted hereunder will terminate.... It seems pretty clear the only license granted hereunder is the one to use the software; in other words if you sue FB for patent infringement you lose the right to use React/Reason.
          • tzs 9y ago
            According to Facebook's "Open Source License FAQ" [1]: > Does termination of the additional patent grant in the Facebook BSD+Patents license cause the copyright license to also terminate? > No. [1] https://code.facebook.com/pages/850928938376556 https://code.facebook.com/pages/850928938376556
            • moron4hire 9y ago
              The FAQ is not a binding contract. There is no reason to believe anything outside of the license itself, and the license sais you'll lose it if you file a patent infringement claim. People lie. It happens. Facebook is not exactly the most noble company in the world.
              • tzs 9y ago
                Promissory estoppel.
          • Lazare 9y ago
            > That's not my reading. Literally every lawyer who has looked at that license agrees that your interpretation is wrong. Also, licenses like this have standard language; if you're even slightly familiar with how such language is interpreted, you'd realise that this represents two independent licenses to two different things, which terminate in different cases. Also, Facebook has publically explained what the language means to them, and yes, that would be legally binding on them. Plus: > IMO that's pretty clearly saying you don't actually have any license to their patents. Right, a document titled "additional grant of patent rights" that "grants to each recipient of the Software [...] a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, irrevocable (subject to the termination provision below) license under any [claim of a patent owned by Facebook that is necessarily infringed by the Software standing alone], isn't a grant of patent rights? I'm sorry, but literally everything you've said is wrong. I highly suggest you read the analysis of an actual lawyer, such as the one I linked in the comment you're replying to, because you appear to have no clue what you're talking about.