7 ms·

Relicensing the GraphQL specification

221 points by dwwoelfel 9y ago

eloff 9y ago
Great news! This follows on the heels of the relicensing of React, Jest, Flow, and Immutable.js. All MIT licensed now. Thank you, Facebook for taking the high road here and putting developers first.
andrewingram 9y ago
This is a far more important change than the React one, because GraphQL does actually have patents and didn't have a patent grant. Glad to see it, and learning about the OWFa license :)
- bpicolo 9y ago
  Won't be surprised if fibers get patented in some sense, but who knows
johnabela 9y ago
excellent news!
mcescalante 9y ago
For previous context and discussion that led to this decision, this is the GraphQL issue to look at: https://github.com/facebook/graphql/issues/351 https://github.com/facebook/graphql/issues/351 The original Medium post from an IP attorney is linked in the original issue comment, but I will link it here too as it was a catalyst: https://medium.com/@dwalsh.sdlr/using-graphql-why-facebook-now-owns-you-3182751028c9 https://medium.com/@dwalsh.sdlr/using-graphql-why-facebook-n...
schickling 9y ago
I couldn't be more excited for the recent license adjustments of Facebook's open-source projects. Great work!
thesmallestcat 9y ago
Are these licensing changes retroactive? If I'm already running Facebook's GraphQL reference implementation, do I have to upgrade to be free of the patent restrictions?
- leebyron 9y ago
  Great question. It applies to the variant of the spec as it exists today when the license was applied. Currently found at http://facebook.github.io/graphql/draft/ http://facebook.github.io/graphql/draft/ GraphQL's reference implementation (GraphQL.js) intends on not just being a great implementation, but also very closely following the spec, so you're in good shape. Also, GraphQL.js has had a BSD3+PATENTS license until today, which meant you've always had that patent license. Later today I'll be releasing a version of GraphQL.js that is MIT license instead, understanding that the OWFa1.0 applies to all implementations including the reference implementation.
yasserkaddour 9y ago
I was sure GraphQL issue would have a happy resolution, Relay becoming MIT was a nice surprise.
sidcool 9y ago
This will win hearts and minds for Facebook.
- Slackwise 9y ago
  More like a sigh of relief.
raulk 9y ago
These are all huge wins for Open Source activism! Thanks for listening, Facebook.
soapdog 9y ago
So react, graphql and flow and some others have been re-licensed. Anyone here has info about changing licenses for reasonml?
connorshea 9y ago
Awesome news, now we can reconsider using GraphQL at GitLab! :) https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/34754#note_41492393 https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/34754#note_41... Out of curiosity, does anyone know of any other specs licensed under OWFa?
- shaded-enmity 9y ago
  Some parts of the OCI use the patent-only OWFa: https://www.opencontainers.org/release-notices/v1-0-0 https://www.opencontainers.org/release-notices/v1-0-0
juancampa 9y ago
I'm not, by any means, a licensing expert but OWFa (the new spec license) has the following termination clause: > All rights, grants, and promises made by me to you under this Agreement are terminated if you file, maintain, or voluntarily participate in a lawsuit against me or any person or entity asserting that its Permitted Uses infringe any Granted Claims you would have had the right to enforce had you signed this Agreement, unless that suit was in response to a corresponding suit first brought against you Wasn't this the problem with the previous BSD + patents license? Not criticizing by any means, I'm genuinely curious.
- web007 9y ago
  There are a lot of "good" OSS licenses that have a similar terms - I've noted this elsewhere (re: the CDDL) and haven't gotten an answer. +1 to someone who knows the legal side and can differentiate for laypersons, since the text looks awfully similar between many of these.
- slaymaker1907 9y ago
  The "...Granted Claims you would have had the right to enforce..." seems to limit the claim to stuff related to GraphQL.
  - teraflop 9y ago
    The license is certainly unclear from a layman's perspective. The text specifically defines "Granted Claims" as "those patent claims that I own or control [...] that are infringed by Permitted Uses." And "I" refers only to the entity granting the patent rights. So how does "Granted Claims you would have had the right to enforce" make any sense? Does it only apply to co-owners of the patent rights, or something like that?
    - abritinthebay 9y ago
      > The license is certainly unclear from a layman's perspective. If that's your standard then you'll either be using PD or leaving yourself up to your ears in very very risky code. Most laymen won't understand the full legal implications of something as simple as the BSD licence.
jonas21 9y ago
So, wait, let me get this straight: React has a revokable patent grant, people freak out about it, FB removes the patent grant, everyone rejoices. GraphQL doesn't have a patent grant, people freak out about it, FB adds a revokable patent grant, everyone rejoices. What am I missing?
- slaymaker1907 9y ago
  This patent grant seems at first glance to be much less aggressive than BSD+patents. It seems to only work if the patent claim being filed is related to GraphQL.
- randallsquared 9y ago
  > What am I missing? That there is a patent actually associated with GraphQL, I believe.
  - abiox 9y ago
    the funny thing is, this means that the patent grant previously shipped with react had basically zero relevance to using react (even after a patent dispute).
    - seangrogg 9y ago
      Yes, as was pointed out by the many that continued to use React.
  - raulk 9y ago
    Graph query logic (US 9646028 B2) https://www.google.com/patents/US9646028 https://www.google.com/patents/US9646028
    - hetspookjee 9y ago
      I don't understand how this can be a patent. I seem to be infringing on the patent every day whenever I try to navigate through xmls and json files with a friendly API. Can anyone shed some light on how this patent is innovative?
tomelders 9y ago
I obviously don't know for certain, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was Matt Mullenweg who framed the issue in a way that resonated well enough with Facebook to make them change their approach to licensing so drastically and swiftly... > I think Facebook’s clause is actually clearer than many other approaches companies could take, and Facebook has been one of the better open source contributors out there. But we have a lot of problems to tackle, and convincing the world that Facebook’s patent clause is fine isn’t ours to take on. It’s their fight. https://ma.tt/2017/09/on-react-and-wordpress/ https://ma.tt/2017/09/on-react-and-wordpress/ That last part summed it up perfectly for me. Facebook may well have been right (and I personally believe they were), but it's their responsibility to prove they're right to the world, not ours.
- abiox 9y ago
  > it's their responsibility to prove they're right to the world, not ours i agree, to some extent. but it's also irresponsible to say they're wrong without sound reasoning.
aldoushuxley001 9y ago
Does anyone know if GraphQL can be used for a social network competitor to facebook? Or is that still risky?
- djmashko2 9y ago
  The current license doesn’t prevent you from doing that in any way.
ChrisCinelli 9y ago
In my opinion this is a lot more important than relicensing React. There are a few libraries that do React's job even better than React. But GraphQL and Relay are a bigger game changer... a 10x improvement compare to the current use of REST for server/client communication.

221 points by dwwoelfel 9y ago

Great news! This follows on the heels of the relicensing of React, Jest, Flow, and Immutable.js. All MIT licensed now. Thank you, Facebook for taking the high road here and putting developers first.

andrewingram 9y ago

This is a far more important change than the React one, because GraphQL does actually have patents and didn't have a patent grant. Glad to see it, and learning about the OWFa license :)

bpicolo 9y ago
Won't be surprised if fibers get patented in some sense, but who knows

johnabela 9y ago

excellent news!

mcescalante 9y ago

For previous context and discussion that led to this decision, this is the GraphQL issue to look at: https://github.com/facebook/graphql/issues/351 https://github.com/facebook/graphql/issues/351 The original Medium post from an IP attorney is linked in the original issue comment, but I will link it here too as it was a catalyst: https://medium.com/@dwalsh.sdlr/using-graphql-why-facebook-now-owns-you-3182751028c9 https://medium.com/@dwalsh.sdlr/using-graphql-why-facebook-n...

schickling 9y ago

I couldn't be more excited for the recent license adjustments of Facebook's open-source projects. Great work!

thesmallestcat 9y ago

Are these licensing changes retroactive? If I'm already running Facebook's GraphQL reference implementation, do I have to upgrade to be free of the patent restrictions?

leebyron 9y ago
Great question. It applies to the variant of the spec as it exists today when the license was applied. Currently found at http://facebook.github.io/graphql/draft/ http://facebook.github.io/graphql/draft/ GraphQL's reference implementation (GraphQL.js) intends on not just being a great implementation, but also very closely following the spec, so you're in good shape. Also, GraphQL.js has had a BSD3+PATENTS license until today, which meant you've always had that patent license. Later today I'll be releasing a version of GraphQL.js that is MIT license instead, understanding that the OWFa1.0 applies to all implementations including the reference implementation.

yasserkaddour 9y ago

I was sure GraphQL issue would have a happy resolution, Relay becoming MIT was a nice surprise.

sidcool 9y ago

This will win hearts and minds for Facebook.

Slackwise 9y ago
More like a sigh of relief.

raulk 9y ago

These are all huge wins for Open Source activism! Thanks for listening, Facebook.

soapdog 9y ago

So react, graphql and flow and some others have been re-licensed. Anyone here has info about changing licenses for reasonml?

connorshea 9y ago

Awesome news, now we can reconsider using GraphQL at GitLab! :) https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/34754#note_41492393 https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/34754#note_41... Out of curiosity, does anyone know of any other specs licensed under OWFa?

shaded-enmity 9y ago
Some parts of the OCI use the patent-only OWFa: https://www.opencontainers.org/release-notices/v1-0-0 https://www.opencontainers.org/release-notices/v1-0-0

juancampa 9y ago

I'm not, by any means, a licensing expert but OWFa (the new spec license) has the following termination clause: > All rights, grants, and promises made by me to you under this Agreement are terminated if you file, maintain, or voluntarily participate in a lawsuit against me or any person or entity asserting that its Permitted Uses infringe any Granted Claims you would have had the right to enforce had you signed this Agreement, unless that suit was in response to a corresponding suit first brought against you Wasn't this the problem with the previous BSD + patents license? Not criticizing by any means, I'm genuinely curious.

web007 9y ago
There are a lot of "good" OSS licenses that have a similar terms - I've noted this elsewhere (re: the CDDL) and haven't gotten an answer. +1 to someone who knows the legal side and can differentiate for laypersons, since the text looks awfully similar between many of these.
slaymaker1907 9y ago
The "...Granted Claims you would have had the right to enforce..." seems to limit the claim to stuff related to GraphQL.
- teraflop 9y ago
  The license is certainly unclear from a layman's perspective. The text specifically defines "Granted Claims" as "those patent claims that I own or control [...] that are infringed by Permitted Uses." And "I" refers only to the entity granting the patent rights. So how does "Granted Claims you would have had the right to enforce" make any sense? Does it only apply to co-owners of the patent rights, or something like that?
  - abritinthebay 9y ago
    > The license is certainly unclear from a layman's perspective. If that's your standard then you'll either be using PD or leaving yourself up to your ears in very very risky code. Most laymen won't understand the full legal implications of something as simple as the BSD licence.

jonas21 9y ago

So, wait, let me get this straight: React has a revokable patent grant, people freak out about it, FB removes the patent grant, everyone rejoices. GraphQL doesn't have a patent grant, people freak out about it, FB adds a revokable patent grant, everyone rejoices. What am I missing?

slaymaker1907 9y ago
This patent grant seems at first glance to be much less aggressive than BSD+patents. It seems to only work if the patent claim being filed is related to GraphQL.
randallsquared 9y ago
> What am I missing? That there is a patent actually associated with GraphQL, I believe.
- abiox 9y ago
  the funny thing is, this means that the patent grant previously shipped with react had basically zero relevance to using react (even after a patent dispute).
  - seangrogg 9y ago
    Yes, as was pointed out by the many that continued to use React.
- raulk 9y ago
  Graph query logic (US 9646028 B2) https://www.google.com/patents/US9646028 https://www.google.com/patents/US9646028
  - hetspookjee 9y ago
    I don't understand how this can be a patent. I seem to be infringing on the patent every day whenever I try to navigate through xmls and json files with a friendly API. Can anyone shed some light on how this patent is innovative?

tomelders 9y ago

I obviously don't know for certain, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was Matt Mullenweg who framed the issue in a way that resonated well enough with Facebook to make them change their approach to licensing so drastically and swiftly... > I think Facebook’s clause is actually clearer than many other approaches companies could take, and Facebook has been one of the better open source contributors out there. But we have a lot of problems to tackle, and convincing the world that Facebook’s patent clause is fine isn’t ours to take on. It’s their fight. https://ma.tt/2017/09/on-react-and-wordpress/ https://ma.tt/2017/09/on-react-and-wordpress/ That last part summed it up perfectly for me. Facebook may well have been right (and I personally believe they were), but it's their responsibility to prove they're right to the world, not ours.

abiox 9y ago
> it's their responsibility to prove they're right to the world, not ours i agree, to some extent. but it's also irresponsible to say they're wrong without sound reasoning.

aldoushuxley001 9y ago

Does anyone know if GraphQL can be used for a social network competitor to facebook? Or is that still risky?

djmashko2 9y ago
The current license doesn’t prevent you from doing that in any way.

ChrisCinelli 9y ago

In my opinion this is a lot more important than relicensing React. There are a few libraries that do React's job even better than React. But GraphQL and Relay are a bigger game changer... a 10x improvement compare to the current use of REST for server/client communication.