3 ms·

> baseless and meritless Are you expert in patent law for you to come up with that conclusion though? I you're not a lawyer then your assumption that it's a pe

> baseless and meritless Are you expert in patent law for you to come up with that conclusion though? I you're not a lawyer then your assumption that it's a perfectly OK patent grant is baseless and meritless as well.

notacoward 9y ago
> I you're not a lawyer then your assumption that it's a perfectly OK patent grant is baseless and meritless as well. ...as would any non-lawyer's claim otherwise. Do you call them out the same way, or are you selective about where you apply that rule? In actual fact, it only takes a tiny bit of familiarity with patent law to see that a revocable grant can't be worse than no grant at all. Many engineers have such familiarity. If you haven't triggered the revocation clause in the PATENTS file, you're strictly better off than with plain BSD, because you have all the rights you would have had before while Facebook will have given up the right to sue you first (for patent issues related to your use of React). If you have triggered that revocation clause, you're exactly where plain BSD would have put you to begin with. So you're either better off or exactly equal. Never worse. Anyone who claims otherwise either hasn't actually read the PATENTS file, doesn't have even minimal familiarity with how the law works, or is spreading FUD.
- skrebbel 9y ago
  Wow, you formulated that better than I ever could. Thanks :-)
- Flenser 9y ago
  "a revocable grant can't be worse than no grant at all" an implied license that can't be terminated is better than a explicit license that can: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15051717 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15051717
  - notacoward 9y ago
    I think DannyBee is simply wrong that the explicit grant extinguishes the implicit one, and I've seen plenty of real lawyers agree. The copyright license and the patent license (LICENSE and PATENTS respectively) are separate contracts and even address separate areas of law. The legal principle involved here is that the permissions granted under LICENSE may not be unilaterally withdrawn except for reasons specified in that document itself. That's why some contracts have specific clauses saying that they may be modified by subsequent contracts, because otherwise they may not. LICENSE lacks such a clause. Therefore, in the event of the copyright holder bringing any kind of lawsuit (not just patent) that interferes with others' exercise of permissions given under LICENSE, they would become liable (for breach of contract). It's really not so much an implicit patent license as a guarantee that enforcing patents would lead to mutually assured destruction. The key point here is: all of that still applies regardless of what other contracts exist between the two parties - including the explicit patent grant. The PATENTS file can not modify or nullify anything except itself, either by its existence or by its subsequent revocation. No court would say that it does, because the implications for contract law in general go far beyond patent and copyright. Disclaimer: IANAL. I'm just a guy who understands logic, and who has been involved with software patents from an engineer's perspective.
    - Flenser 9y ago
      Thanks for explaining your reasoning. I think where you and DannyBee differ is with: "permissions granted under LICENSE may not be unilaterally withdrawn except for reasons specified in that document itself" where DannyBee is not taking the patent licence to be a permission that can be implicitly granted under LICENCE when there is a separate explicit PATENTS grant. He states in the followup comment "No license can be implied if there is an explicit license." which I'm guessing you would say only applies if the explicit licence is within or allowed for by LICENCE. Do you think that is that a fair representation of your points of view?
      - notacoward 9y ago
        I think that's fair; thank you. I still think it's untrue that an explicit license extinguishes an implicit one. Consider the two-explicit case. Let's say you and I have two separate contracts, both of which grant me the right to cross your land. If one of those contracts completes or is terminated, does that mean I can't cross your land any more? That would be even crazier than lawyers usually are. I'd still have that right under the other separate contract. Now, why would it be any different if one of those grants is implicit? Again, that would be even crazier, etc. Allowing contracts to interfere with each other like that (in this case the copyright license being affected by a patent issue) would make contract law even more of a nightmare than it is already. I strongly believe courts would reject that not only for the sake of logic or justice but out of sheer self-preservation. Of course, we're all speculating until this exact issue is tested in court. I just think the people assuming the same as DannyBee are leaping toward the least sane and least likely conclusion, and asking others to do the same.

notacoward 9y ago

> I you're not a lawyer then your assumption that it's a perfectly OK patent grant is baseless and meritless as well. ...as would any non-lawyer's claim otherwise. Do you call them out the same way, or are you selective about where you apply that rule? In actual fact, it only takes a tiny bit of familiarity with patent law to see that a revocable grant can't be worse than no grant at all. Many engineers have such familiarity. If you haven't triggered the revocation clause in the PATENTS file, you're strictly better off than with plain BSD, because you have all the rights you would have had before while Facebook will have given up the right to sue you first (for patent issues related to your use of React). If you have triggered that revocation clause, you're exactly where plain BSD would have put you to begin with. So you're either better off or exactly equal. Never worse. Anyone who claims otherwise either hasn't actually read the PATENTS file, doesn't have even minimal familiarity with how the law works, or is spreading FUD.

skrebbel 9y ago
Wow, you formulated that better than I ever could. Thanks :-)
Flenser 9y ago
"a revocable grant can't be worse than no grant at all" an implied license that can't be terminated is better than a explicit license that can: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15051717 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15051717
- notacoward 9y ago
  I think DannyBee is simply wrong that the explicit grant extinguishes the implicit one, and I've seen plenty of real lawyers agree. The copyright license and the patent license (LICENSE and PATENTS respectively) are separate contracts and even address separate areas of law. The legal principle involved here is that the permissions granted under LICENSE may not be unilaterally withdrawn except for reasons specified in that document itself. That's why some contracts have specific clauses saying that they may be modified by subsequent contracts, because otherwise they may not. LICENSE lacks such a clause. Therefore, in the event of the copyright holder bringing any kind of lawsuit (not just patent) that interferes with others' exercise of permissions given under LICENSE, they would become liable (for breach of contract). It's really not so much an implicit patent license as a guarantee that enforcing patents would lead to mutually assured destruction. The key point here is: all of that still applies regardless of what other contracts exist between the two parties - including the explicit patent grant. The PATENTS file can not modify or nullify anything except itself, either by its existence or by its subsequent revocation. No court would say that it does, because the implications for contract law in general go far beyond patent and copyright. Disclaimer: IANAL. I'm just a guy who understands logic, and who has been involved with software patents from an engineer's perspective.
  - Flenser 9y ago
    Thanks for explaining your reasoning. I think where you and DannyBee differ is with: "permissions granted under LICENSE may not be unilaterally withdrawn except for reasons specified in that document itself" where DannyBee is not taking the patent licence to be a permission that can be implicitly granted under LICENCE when there is a separate explicit PATENTS grant. He states in the followup comment "No license can be implied if there is an explicit license." which I'm guessing you would say only applies if the explicit licence is within or allowed for by LICENCE. Do you think that is that a fair representation of your points of view?
    - notacoward 9y ago
      I think that's fair; thank you. I still think it's untrue that an explicit license extinguishes an implicit one. Consider the two-explicit case. Let's say you and I have two separate contracts, both of which grant me the right to cross your land. If one of those contracts completes or is terminated, does that mean I can't cross your land any more? That would be even crazier than lawyers usually are. I'd still have that right under the other separate contract. Now, why would it be any different if one of those grants is implicit? Again, that would be even crazier, etc. Allowing contracts to interfere with each other like that (in this case the copyright license being affected by a patent issue) would make contract law even more of a nightmare than it is already. I strongly believe courts would reject that not only for the sake of logic or justice but out of sheer self-preservation. Of course, we're all speculating until this exact issue is tested in court. I just think the people assuming the same as DannyBee are leaping toward the least sane and least likely conclusion, and asking others to do the same.