2 ms·

That's semantics, because if they deny you the right to use a patent that you need to use React, you effectively cannot use React.

• abritinthebay 9y ago
  That’s true no matter what. Without a patent grant you’re in the same situation. You’d still be covered by the (less powerful) implicit grant in the license anyhow as the license doesn’t get revoked. You can’t have it both ways: both with and without the grant can’t be bad.
  • AsyncAwait 9y ago
    Yeah, I'd prefer Facebook to declare to not participating in the software patent fiasco at all and to lobby for it not being allowed, but at present, my thinking is that it just seems like having the ability to EXPLICITLY revoke you a patent grant is actually worse than having an implicit one, since then it will probably would be harder to argue for Facebook that they have the ability to explicitly revoke something that is part of the license as a whole, but I accept that I might be wrong on this as IANAL.
    • abritinthebay 9y ago
      They always have that power tho - technically an implicit grant in a license is very very weak. It's already had case-law that shows that it only applies in very very specific situations. An explicit grant gives you much more power generally. Their ability to revoke is limited to specific situations and that's a reasonable tradeoff. It's still more rights than you have without the patent grant.