4 ms·

But does MIT license really solve all patent issues? FB could still enforce patents regardless of license if I understood it properly.

signal11 9y ago
IANAL, but is it fair to say that using React under MIT doesn't leave you any worse off than using Angular and Vue? (both of which are MIT-licensed) Depending on the patent in question, it is possible to be on the hook even if you don't use React.
- mihular 9y ago
  But do the others have explicit patents?
  - pritambaral 9y ago
    Does React?
    - mihular 9y ago
      I don't know. But Facebook owns around 5200 patents. Add the previous patent clause to it and you have a good probability that there are patents covering parts of react. VirtualDOM is certainly a candidate.
mlsarecmg 9y ago
Everyone can, that's precisely why they gave you a grant previously. Now that it's gone due to the outcry it's in the same, vague playing field that all other libraries are in. Every project you have ever written infringes on someones IP. The only thing that matters is that lawyers that previously got cold feet can now relax. We had a project for instance that was canceled, now it's being green-lit thanks to the MIT license.
- TimTheTinker 9y ago
  Actually, there is an (albeit so far untested) implicit patent grant in all-permissive licenses like the MIT. So removing the explicit one-way, revokable patent grant actually implicitly provides a better patent grant.
  - mihular 9y ago
    I'd really like to see that written black on white,though.
    - TimTheTinker 9y ago
      The fact that MIT and BSD licensed code (implicit patent impunity) can be re-licensed under the Apache license (explicit patent impunity) is enough evidence for me. Reference: http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a
      - ec109685 9y ago
        What does re-licensed mean? You can’t take mit licensed code and slap a Apache License on it.
        TimTheTinker 9y ago
        You can create a derivative work and license that under Apache.
        ec109685 9y ago
        Not if it uses copyrighted MIT licensed code.
    - DannyBee 9y ago
      Black and white is not as good as everyone seems to think. There are reasons you don't enumerate every possibility ;) (courts will then interpret that as a complete list, instead of extending it to cover similar situations) If you had black and white fair use, for example, you'd just be railing against the fact that courts wouldn't extend it to cover new similar thing X. Black and white is good for establishing baselines in law (IE "these things over here are definitely okay, and everything else should be judged by these factors" It's rarely that great if you are trying to make a license that stands the test of time and march of technology.
Lazare 9y ago
> But does MIT license really solve all patent issues? Close enough, I'd say. > FB could still enforce patents regardless of license It is widely accepted that the MIT license has an implicit patent grant.

signal11 9y ago

IANAL, but is it fair to say that using React under MIT doesn't leave you any worse off than using Angular and Vue? (both of which are MIT-licensed) Depending on the patent in question, it is possible to be on the hook even if you don't use React.

mihular 9y ago
But do the others have explicit patents?
- pritambaral 9y ago
  Does React?
  - mihular 9y ago
    I don't know. But Facebook owns around 5200 patents. Add the previous patent clause to it and you have a good probability that there are patents covering parts of react. VirtualDOM is certainly a candidate.

mlsarecmg 9y ago

Everyone can, that's precisely why they gave you a grant previously. Now that it's gone due to the outcry it's in the same, vague playing field that all other libraries are in. Every project you have ever written infringes on someones IP. The only thing that matters is that lawyers that previously got cold feet can now relax. We had a project for instance that was canceled, now it's being green-lit thanks to the MIT license.

TimTheTinker 9y ago
Actually, there is an (albeit so far untested) implicit patent grant in all-permissive licenses like the MIT. So removing the explicit one-way, revokable patent grant actually implicitly provides a better patent grant.
- mihular 9y ago
  I'd really like to see that written black on white,though.
  - TimTheTinker 9y ago
    The fact that MIT and BSD licensed code (implicit patent impunity) can be re-licensed under the Apache license (explicit patent impunity) is enough evidence for me. Reference: http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a
    - ec109685 9y ago
      What does re-licensed mean? You can’t take mit licensed code and slap a Apache License on it.
      - TimTheTinker 9y ago
        You can create a derivative work and license that under Apache.
        ec109685 9y ago
        Not if it uses copyrighted MIT licensed code.
  - DannyBee 9y ago
    Black and white is not as good as everyone seems to think. There are reasons you don't enumerate every possibility ;) (courts will then interpret that as a complete list, instead of extending it to cover similar situations) If you had black and white fair use, for example, you'd just be railing against the fact that courts wouldn't extend it to cover new similar thing X. Black and white is good for establishing baselines in law (IE "these things over here are definitely okay, and everything else should be judged by these factors" It's rarely that great if you are trying to make a license that stands the test of time and march of technology.

Lazare 9y ago

> But does MIT license really solve all patent issues? Close enough, I'd say. > FB could still enforce patents regardless of license It is widely accepted that the MIT license has an implicit patent grant.