6 ms·

Wait, this doesn’t solve anything. They replaced BSD with MIT, which are basically the same license and then they removed any explicit patent grant. So this mea

Wait, this doesn’t solve anything. They replaced BSD with MIT, which are basically the same license and then they removed any explicit patent grant. So this means the user is actually granted less rights then before. Am I missing something or does this make zero sense?

dntrkv 9y ago
Yeah, that's why all the upheaval against the patents grant was so fucking stupid.
- whipoodle 9y ago
  I'm just glad we can put this one to bed, and focus our efforts on finding the next silly reason not to use React.
jeeyoungk 9y ago
The way I interpret it is, explicit patent license implies _less_: - Explicit patent license specifies why / how it can be revoked. - Without an explicit patent license, patent infringement case (by Facebook) against a party that uses Facebook's OSS would be become harder, because one may argue that such grant is implied by Facebook open sourcing the software.
brandonbloom 9y ago
That's what all the Facebook & React folks were arguing. Facebook doesn't want to do unconditional patent grants. Plus, they decided that the weak patent retaliation clause in Apache 2 license wasn't strong enough. This new license is strictly riskier for people than the old license, but it's more familiar, so people won't freak out.
- electriclove 9y ago
  Apache 2 was fine for RocksDB.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
nostrademons 9y ago
Implied patent licenses: https://www.wilmerhale.com/pages/publicationsandnewsdetail.aspx?NewsPubId=95535 https://www.wilmerhale.com/pages/publicationsandnewsdetail.a... https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech7.html https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech7.html Basically, if you sell or license a product that requires a patent to work, courts have generally held that you grant an implied patent license for any patents that the product might require. If you explicitly reference patents within the license, however, then whatever terms you explicitly write into the license supersede this implied patent license. BSD+patents (and Apache 2) have explicit patent language; paradoxically, this makes them more restrictive than licenses like MIT, BSD, or GPL that don't mention patents at all.
- Fzzr 9y ago
  GPL 3 adds an anti-patent-treachery clause not unlike the Apache 2 clause. React Patent Grant Version 2: https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/b8ba8c83f318b84e42933f6928f231dc0918f864/PATENTS https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/b8ba8c83f318b84e42933... The license granted hereunder will terminate, automatically and without notice, if you (or any of your subsidiaries, corporate affiliates or agents) initiate directly or indirectly, or take a direct financial interest in, any Patent Assertion: (i) against Facebook or any of its subsidiaries or corporate affiliates, (ii) against any party if such Patent Assertion arises in whole or in part from any software, technology, product or service of Facebook or any of its subsidiaries or corporate affiliates, or (iii) against any party relating to the Software. Apache 2 Section 3: http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed. GPL 3 Section 10 (See also Section 11): https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License. For example, you may not impose a license fee, royalty, or other charge for exercise of rights granted under this License, 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. Edited for spacing
slavik81 9y ago
If there is an implicit patent grant, we have more rights. I think there is a strong case that the implicit grant exists, and would vastly prefer seeing projects licensed under MIT than under the Facebook license. Apache 2.0 would have also been acceptable, as it had a better explicit patent grant. I'm actually a little surprised they didn't choose it.
hysan 9y ago
I'm not well versed enough in the various licenses to compare BSD+Patents and MIT, but in my opinion, this is more of a move to appease the community than anything dealing with the benefits/disadvantages of the license being used. You may be right that this might actually reduce our rights, however, the MIT license is well known and accepted by many in the developer community. It's been around long enough that developers know what they are agreeing to when they use something with an MIT license. With the BSD+Patents license, the biggest concern was not understanding what you were getting into when using React. Facebook recognized this and conceded despite still believing in the BSD+Patents license to be better. So in that sense, this makes a lot of sense as it: * alleviates community concerns * builds up their standing with developers * generates a lot of good PR * draws attention away from alternative solutions which were getting a lot of publicity from all of this (Vue.js, Marko, Preact, etc.) It would be nice though to have a lawyer chime in on the differences between BSD+Patents and MIT.
arenaninja 9y ago
From my layman perspective, jQuery has MIT license, now React has MIT license. jQuery was once ubiquitous, now React can be too. I'm likely oversimplifying, but that's about as much as I understand on licenses
ballenf 9y ago
There hasn't been a single patent covering a standard React implementation found yet. Someone found one that might cover a niche case, but the bottom line is no one really knows if any patents of any substance or having broad claims will actually ever issue. That combined with the implied licenses means there was a patent clause causing a ton of unecessary hand-wringing. The reality is every company of FB's size is patenting every developer's latest dump if it can get through the patent office.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

dntrkv 9y ago

Yeah, that's why all the upheaval against the patents grant was so fucking stupid.

whipoodle 9y ago
I'm just glad we can put this one to bed, and focus our efforts on finding the next silly reason not to use React.

jeeyoungk 9y ago

The way I interpret it is, explicit patent license implies _less_: - Explicit patent license specifies why / how it can be revoked. - Without an explicit patent license, patent infringement case (by Facebook) against a party that uses Facebook's OSS would be become harder, because one may argue that such grant is implied by Facebook open sourcing the software.

brandonbloom 9y ago

That's what all the Facebook & React folks were arguing. Facebook doesn't want to do unconditional patent grants. Plus, they decided that the weak patent retaliation clause in Apache 2 license wasn't strong enough. This new license is strictly riskier for people than the old license, but it's more familiar, so people won't freak out.

electriclove 9y ago
Apache 2 was fine for RocksDB.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

nostrademons 9y ago

Implied patent licenses: https://www.wilmerhale.com/pages/publicationsandnewsdetail.aspx?NewsPubId=95535 https://www.wilmerhale.com/pages/publicationsandnewsdetail.a... https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech7.html https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech7.html Basically, if you sell or license a product that requires a patent to work, courts have generally held that you grant an implied patent license for any patents that the product might require. If you explicitly reference patents within the license, however, then whatever terms you explicitly write into the license supersede this implied patent license. BSD+patents (and Apache 2) have explicit patent language; paradoxically, this makes them more restrictive than licenses like MIT, BSD, or GPL that don't mention patents at all.

Fzzr 9y ago
GPL 3 adds an anti-patent-treachery clause not unlike the Apache 2 clause. React Patent Grant Version 2: https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/b8ba8c83f318b84e42933f6928f231dc0918f864/PATENTS https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/b8ba8c83f318b84e42933... The license granted hereunder will terminate, automatically and without notice, if you (or any of your subsidiaries, corporate affiliates or agents) initiate directly or indirectly, or take a direct financial interest in, any Patent Assertion: (i) against Facebook or any of its subsidiaries or corporate affiliates, (ii) against any party if such Patent Assertion arises in whole or in part from any software, technology, product or service of Facebook or any of its subsidiaries or corporate affiliates, or (iii) against any party relating to the Software. Apache 2 Section 3: http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed. GPL 3 Section 10 (See also Section 11): https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License. For example, you may not impose a license fee, royalty, or other charge for exercise of rights granted under this License, 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. Edited for spacing

slavik81 9y ago

If there is an implicit patent grant, we have more rights. I think there is a strong case that the implicit grant exists, and would vastly prefer seeing projects licensed under MIT than under the Facebook license. Apache 2.0 would have also been acceptable, as it had a better explicit patent grant. I'm actually a little surprised they didn't choose it.

hysan 9y ago

I'm not well versed enough in the various licenses to compare BSD+Patents and MIT, but in my opinion, this is more of a move to appease the community than anything dealing with the benefits/disadvantages of the license being used. You may be right that this might actually reduce our rights, however, the MIT license is well known and accepted by many in the developer community. It's been around long enough that developers know what they are agreeing to when they use something with an MIT license. With the BSD+Patents license, the biggest concern was not understanding what you were getting into when using React. Facebook recognized this and conceded despite still believing in the BSD+Patents license to be better. So in that sense, this makes a lot of sense as it: * alleviates community concerns * builds up their standing with developers * generates a lot of good PR * draws attention away from alternative solutions which were getting a lot of publicity from all of this (Vue.js, Marko, Preact, etc.) It would be nice though to have a lawyer chime in on the differences between BSD+Patents and MIT.

arenaninja 9y ago

From my layman perspective, jQuery has MIT license, now React has MIT license. jQuery was once ubiquitous, now React can be too. I'm likely oversimplifying, but that's about as much as I understand on licenses

ballenf 9y ago

There hasn't been a single patent covering a standard React implementation found yet. Someone found one that might cover a niche case, but the bottom line is no one really knows if any patents of any substance or having broad claims will actually ever issue. That combined with the implied licenses means there was a patent clause causing a ton of unecessary hand-wringing. The reality is every company of FB's size is patenting every developer's latest dump if it can get through the patent office.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]