4 ms·

This is a very smart move by Facebook, and a win for the open source community as a whole. Why it took so long for the license change is a bit of a mystery, but

by maxton 9y ago

This is a very smart move by Facebook, and a win for the open source community as a whole. Why it took so long for the license change is a bit of a mystery, but removing the complications of software patents from their licenses will help further drive adoption and remove the precedent they were in danger of setting.

rocky1138 9y ago
> Why it took so long for the license change is a bit of a mystery Have you ever worked at a large company with its own legal team? It's not such a large mystery.
- hobofan 9y ago
  I guess you haven't seen the Facebook projects where the patent grant was dumped after a handfull of people asked nicely. There it was more of a "Yeah sure, why not?" by the maintainer without much input from the legal team as it seems.
wslh 9y ago
> Why it took so long for the license change is a bit of a mystery Big organizations require more time and people to reach consensus at different hierarchical levels. Probably the legal department was the bottleneck.
- sbarre 9y ago
  I suspect it also took time for the mounting discontent and for the number of voices to reach some kind of tipping point which then caused Facebook to begin the internal process of re-evaluating their licensing. Either way, it's a good move.
carussell 9y ago
> a win for the open source community as a whole I'm not sure how changing course from a direction that could have neutralized patents, to one engineered so patent aggressors aren't hurt, is something that can be considered a win for the open source community.
- nojvek 9y ago
  Because their licence gave Facebook the upper hand if they wanted to come after you. MIT is like a standard when it comes to OS. At big companies, complicated licencies are very hard to get approval of.
  - carussell 9y ago
    > Because their licence gave Facebook the upper hand if they wanted to come after you. No it didn't. Facebook made a nothing-up-the-sleeve showing; you had recourse if they decided to "come after you", because your right to countersue was something that was explicitly protected in the PATENTS grant. Removing the grant, on the other hand, contributes to a world where everyone else can come after you. That should be scarier, because the set containing entities who aren't Facebook is much larger than the set of entities who are. (And the latter set is much less likely to sue—virtually guaranteed not to sue, even—for the exact reason mentioned above.)
    - ethbro 9y ago
      Wasn't the issue not "if they come after you" but "if they pirate your tech without suing you"?
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - Sacho 9y ago
        When you use the loaded term "pirate your tech", you mean "infringe your patents", right? The thing that the clause is trying to neutralize? This is why Facebook's move to neutralize patents failed - everyone's suddenly in love with their own patents, even if they agree that the system is broken. It was a good idea to scrap the clause to prevent the community from fracturing, but there's no triumph here - they failed to convince people that patents were a scourge to be eliminated.
        9y ago
wolco 9y ago
This is a win for fans of the mentioned packages. This license lives on in other facebook packages.
pasta1212 9y ago
> Why it took so long for the license change is a bit of a mystery Be careful. Facebook hasn’t said they’re removing the patents override completely. All they’ve said here is they’re changing their licensing, not what they’ll do. They may end up with BSD+Different patents grant. Make sure you check the changes next week. I doubt it will be straight BSD or they would have said it.
- bpicolo 9y ago
  The article straight up says these repos are moving to MIT

by maxton 9y ago

rocky1138 9y ago

> Why it took so long for the license change is a bit of a mystery Have you ever worked at a large company with its own legal team? It's not such a large mystery.

hobofan 9y ago
I guess you haven't seen the Facebook projects where the patent grant was dumped after a handfull of people asked nicely. There it was more of a "Yeah sure, why not?" by the maintainer without much input from the legal team as it seems.

wslh 9y ago

> Why it took so long for the license change is a bit of a mystery Big organizations require more time and people to reach consensus at different hierarchical levels. Probably the legal department was the bottleneck.

sbarre 9y ago
I suspect it also took time for the mounting discontent and for the number of voices to reach some kind of tipping point which then caused Facebook to begin the internal process of re-evaluating their licensing. Either way, it's a good move.

carussell 9y ago

> a win for the open source community as a whole I'm not sure how changing course from a direction that could have neutralized patents, to one engineered so patent aggressors aren't hurt, is something that can be considered a win for the open source community.

nojvek 9y ago
Because their licence gave Facebook the upper hand if they wanted to come after you. MIT is like a standard when it comes to OS. At big companies, complicated licencies are very hard to get approval of.
- carussell 9y ago
  > Because their licence gave Facebook the upper hand if they wanted to come after you. No it didn't. Facebook made a nothing-up-the-sleeve showing; you had recourse if they decided to "come after you", because your right to countersue was something that was explicitly protected in the PATENTS grant. Removing the grant, on the other hand, contributes to a world where everyone else can come after you. That should be scarier, because the set containing entities who aren't Facebook is much larger than the set of entities who are. (And the latter set is much less likely to sue—virtually guaranteed not to sue, even—for the exact reason mentioned above.)
  - ethbro 9y ago
    Wasn't the issue not "if they come after you" but "if they pirate your tech without suing you"?
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - Sacho 9y ago
      When you use the loaded term "pirate your tech", you mean "infringe your patents", right? The thing that the clause is trying to neutralize? This is why Facebook's move to neutralize patents failed - everyone's suddenly in love with their own patents, even if they agree that the system is broken. It was a good idea to scrap the clause to prevent the community from fracturing, but there's no triumph here - they failed to convince people that patents were a scourge to be eliminated.
      - 9y ago

wolco 9y ago

This is a win for fans of the mentioned packages. This license lives on in other facebook packages.

pasta1212 9y ago

> Why it took so long for the license change is a bit of a mystery Be careful. Facebook hasn’t said they’re removing the patents override completely. All they’ve said here is they’re changing their licensing, not what they’ll do. They may end up with BSD+Different patents grant. Make sure you check the changes next week. I doubt it will be straight BSD or they would have said it.

bpicolo 9y ago
The article straight up says these repos are moving to MIT