4 ms·

See the fourth paragraph. > This shift naturally raises questions about the rest of Facebook's open source projects. Many of our popular projects will keep the

See the fourth paragraph. > This shift naturally raises questions about the rest of Facebook's open source projects. Many of our popular projects will keep the BSD + Patents license for now. We're evaluating those projects' licenses too, but each project is different and alternative licensing options will depend on a variety of factors.

CydeWeys 9y ago
So the list of packages they're truly open sourcing is intentionally small, then. They're only truly open sourcing the ones that are very popular and that had a huge amount of outcry over the license. That makes it worse.
- Kilenaitor 9y ago
  > That makes it worse. In what way does re-licensing their most popular packages make it worse? It says they're evaluating. Doesn't say no and as demonstrated here it doesn't mean they wont change their mind later.
  - s73ver_ 9y ago
    What more is there to evaluate, though? What is different between React, which did get the relicense, and React Native, which didn't?
  - CydeWeys 9y ago
    You didn't interpret my comment correctly. What is worse is that the narrowly selected range of projects to re-license is intentional rather than unintentional. They're only fixing the patent clauses on the bare minimum that they feel is necessary due to outrage. That means that they'd rather not but they're being forced into it. It'd be different if they were deciding to re-license everything; that might indicate an actual change of heart.
  - wolco 9y ago
    What worries many is that they may change the license at a later
  - irrational 9y ago
    It creates continued uncertainty. If all the tools/libraries in the React ecosystem (such as React Native) don't all have the license, then we will probably stay the course with Vue. While Vue is amazing, React has a larger ecosystem. But if that entire ecosystem isn't available due to licenses then we might as well stick with Vue.
- madeofpalk 9y ago
  Of course its intentional, unless you truely thought they forgot about React Native. The common thread here is that these libraries are often used together - changing React's license wouldn't have helped if they're also using Flow and Jest.
  - chrisco255 9y ago
    They said they're evaluating those. Facebook has to consider the impact of each library on their patent portfolio. They may not choose MIT for some of them. Maybe they'll go with Apache v2 for React Native. Let's relax. They're making the right moves here.
- jrochkind1 9y ago
  I don't think it's fair to claim that it wasn't "truly open source". There isn't just one "truly open source" license. There are several. They obviously aren't all the same, that's why they are different licenses. People might have a reason to prefer one to another, but they are all "truly open source". People might even realize that there are some of them they can't use -- _many_ people have reasons they can't use the GPL, but that doesn't make it "not truly open source". The Open Source Initiative's definition of "open source" doesn't say anything about patents: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd I don't know if Facebook has asked the OSI to validate their "before" license as "open source." Perhaps if they did it would be controversial (or perhaps not), perhaps it would lead to OSI making more restrictions on what it will call 'open source', I dunno. One version of a "BSD+Patents" license is approved by OSI, but not one involving a "retaliation" clause. https://opensource.org/licenses/BSDplusPatent https://opensource.org/licenses/BSDplusPatent Anyway, I don't think you have any grounds to say that license was not "truly open source".
- Sacho 9y ago
  How are patents at all aligned with "truly open sourcing"? The GPLv3 is openly hostile to patent litigation: "and you may not initiate litigation (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that any patent claim is infringed by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the Program or any portion of it" The whole fight here is about patents, not about open source. Perhaps Facebook's solution to nuking patents was too crude, but it had nothing to do with "open source" vs "closed source". The whole issue here is whether you could still use your patents against Facebook, something orthogonal, if not outright hostile to open source.

CydeWeys 9y ago

So the list of packages they're truly open sourcing is intentionally small, then. They're only truly open sourcing the ones that are very popular and that had a huge amount of outcry over the license. That makes it worse.

Kilenaitor 9y ago
> That makes it worse. In what way does re-licensing their most popular packages make it worse? It says they're evaluating. Doesn't say no and as demonstrated here it doesn't mean they wont change their mind later.
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  What more is there to evaluate, though? What is different between React, which did get the relicense, and React Native, which didn't?
- CydeWeys 9y ago
  You didn't interpret my comment correctly. What is worse is that the narrowly selected range of projects to re-license is intentional rather than unintentional. They're only fixing the patent clauses on the bare minimum that they feel is necessary due to outrage. That means that they'd rather not but they're being forced into it. It'd be different if they were deciding to re-license everything; that might indicate an actual change of heart.
- wolco 9y ago
  What worries many is that they may change the license at a later
- irrational 9y ago
  It creates continued uncertainty. If all the tools/libraries in the React ecosystem (such as React Native) don't all have the license, then we will probably stay the course with Vue. While Vue is amazing, React has a larger ecosystem. But if that entire ecosystem isn't available due to licenses then we might as well stick with Vue.
madeofpalk 9y ago
Of course its intentional, unless you truely thought they forgot about React Native. The common thread here is that these libraries are often used together - changing React's license wouldn't have helped if they're also using Flow and Jest.
- chrisco255 9y ago
  They said they're evaluating those. Facebook has to consider the impact of each library on their patent portfolio. They may not choose MIT for some of them. Maybe they'll go with Apache v2 for React Native. Let's relax. They're making the right moves here.
jrochkind1 9y ago
I don't think it's fair to claim that it wasn't "truly open source". There isn't just one "truly open source" license. There are several. They obviously aren't all the same, that's why they are different licenses. People might have a reason to prefer one to another, but they are all "truly open source". People might even realize that there are some of them they can't use -- _many_ people have reasons they can't use the GPL, but that doesn't make it "not truly open source". The Open Source Initiative's definition of "open source" doesn't say anything about patents: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd I don't know if Facebook has asked the OSI to validate their "before" license as "open source." Perhaps if they did it would be controversial (or perhaps not), perhaps it would lead to OSI making more restrictions on what it will call 'open source', I dunno. One version of a "BSD+Patents" license is approved by OSI, but not one involving a "retaliation" clause. https://opensource.org/licenses/BSDplusPatent https://opensource.org/licenses/BSDplusPatent Anyway, I don't think you have any grounds to say that license was not "truly open source".
Sacho 9y ago
How are patents at all aligned with "truly open sourcing"? The GPLv3 is openly hostile to patent litigation: "and you may not initiate litigation (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that any patent claim is infringed by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the Program or any portion of it" The whole fight here is about patents, not about open source. Perhaps Facebook's solution to nuking patents was too crude, but it had nothing to do with "open source" vs "closed source". The whole issue here is whether you could still use your patents against Facebook, something orthogonal, if not outright hostile to open source.