4 ms·
GraphQL has an ongoing discussion about this (that predates much of the recent flare ups about PATENTS): https://github.com/facebook/graphql/issues/351 https://
by timdorr 9y ago
GraphQL has an ongoing discussion about this (that predates much of the recent flare ups about PATENTS): https://github.com/facebook/graphql/issues/351 https://github.com/facebook/graphql/issues/351
The complicating factor there is Facebook actually has a patent covering the GraphQL specification (along with the fact that they're applying PATENTS to a specification, vs an implementation): https://www.google.com/patents/US9646028 https://www.google.com/patents/US9646028
- jancsika 9y agoFrom https://code.facebook.com/posts/112130496157735/explaining-react-s-license/ https://code.facebook.com/posts/112130496157735/explaining-r... > As our business has become successful, we've become a larger target for meritless patent litigation. This type of litigation can be extremely costly in terms of both resources and attention. It would have been easy for us to stop contributing to open source, or to do what some other large companies do and only release software that isn't used in our most successful products, but we decided to take a different approach. Never heard Facebook answer: why didn't they just follow Red Hat's model and make a "Patent Promise"[1]? Then accumulation of software patents would help deter meritless litigation while staying out of the way of FLOSS developers getting their work done. [1] https://www.redhat.com/en/about/patent-promise https://www.redhat.com/en/about/patent-promise
- jibcage 9y agoCan somebody who speaks legalese translate Red Hat's Patent Promise into more parseable English? I'm curious how it works, but the wording is pretty obscure to me.
- jklein11 9y agoI am not a lawyer, but my take on it is: Red Hat holds patents but promises not to enforce them. This means anyone can use the IP without worrying about being sued for infringement. No one else can claim they own the IP because Red Hat already owns it. They also have a clause saying that if Red Hat sells the IP, the buyer needs to uphold the same promise.
- njharman 9y agoI am also not a lawyer. But I don't think a "promise" is a legally enforceable concept.
- gpderetta 9y agoI'm not a lawyer either, but the estoppel doctrine should make it enforceable.
- haikuginger 9y agoI am a fourth non-lawyer, and this is all RICO.
- npsomaratna 9y ago3rd year law student (among other things!) here. As you've mentioned, the doctrine of promissory estoppel should make this enforceable in law.
- c0ndu17 9y agoThis whole I'm not a lawyer business brings this to mind... https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DKF9KCcXkAA11ez.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DKF9KCcXkAA11ez.jpg
- joatmon-snoo 9y agoTo the extent a party makes, uses, sells, offers to sell, imports, or otherwise transfers Covered FOSS, Red Hat agrees not to use such actions as a basis for enforcing its patents against the party ("Our Promise"), subject to the limitations herein. If I read this right, Red Hat promises to not sue anyone for using/transferring FOSS whether or not such an action infringes on Red Hat's patents - they will only use patents to defend against litigation. (IANAL.)
- mcbits 9y agoThe way I'm reading it, if you develop free/open source software that infringes Red Hat's patents, Red Hat promises not to sue unless you sue them first. The "combined" part seems to be saying you can also develop a system that's partly proprietary, as long as the proprietary parts are simple and not using Red Hat's patents. If they sell a patent, the buyer must agree to the same promise. The promise won't protect you if you infringe someone else's IP, even if it's related to one of Red Hat's patents.
- Zarel 9y ago> promises not to sue unless you sue them first Isn't that exactly the same as Facebook's license grant?
- ungamed 9y agoFacebook can sue you first.
- madeofpalk 9y agoSure, but you won't loose the patent grant. if Facebook [...] files a lawsuit alleging patent infringement against you in the first instance, and you respond by filing a patent infringement counterclaim in that lawsuit against that party that is unrelated to the Software, the license granted hereunder will not terminate
- mcbits 9y agoRed Hat: You can use our patents if we can use your software. Facebook: You can use our software if we can use your patents. That's my severely over-simplified interpretation. The most significant difference is that Red Hat's promise extends to FOSS in general, though apparently not proprietary software. Facebook's license applies only to specific Facebook FOSS code, but it can be used in proprietary software.
- ec109685 9y ago
- Mayzie 9y agoOr what about Google's Golang PATENTS clause? https://golang.org/PATENTS https://golang.org/PATENTS
- dis-sys 9y agothe one in Go basically says if you sue google for any Go related patents then they revoke the license. that patent retaliation clause is nothing different from the one used in Apache Licence Version 2. the one in react says they revoke your license when you sue facebook for any patent related matter.
- sseppola 9y agoAslo called a "weak patent retaliation clause" vs React's (current) strong patent retaliation clause. I found the explanations in [1] to be very helpful to understand patent clauses. [1]: https://medium.com/@dwalsh.sdlr/react-facebook-and-the-revokable-patent-license-why-its-a-paper-25c40c50b562 https://medium.com/@dwalsh.sdlr/react-facebook-and-the-revok...
- x0x0 9y agoThat link is also worth reading because the author is a lawyer; he claims the React patent clause is a paper tiger.
- dis-sys 9y agodifferent people have different opinions, the problem is as long as there are many people who have such legal concerns about react's BSD+PATENT, using react would be considered as suicidal for startups.