4 ms·

The title was rewritten, specifically the concerning part is the 2nd paragraph. Apparently Facebook reserves the right to revoke anyone's license using React if

The title was rewritten, specifically the concerning part is the 2nd paragraph. Apparently Facebook reserves the right to revoke anyone's license using React if FB feels there is a patent infringement. Edit: I'm wrong. https://twitter.com/SlexAxton/status/562318547674619904 https://twitter.com/SlexAxton/status/562318547674619904

peterhunt 12y ago
That's not what it says. The license granted hereunder will terminate, automatically and without notice, for anyone that makes any claim (including by filing any lawsuit, assertion or other action) alleging (a) direct, indirect, or contributory infringement or inducement to infringe any patent: (i) by Facebook or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates, whether or not such claim is related to the Software, So if you're a patent troll, you don't get to use React.
- tptacek 12y ago
  The GPL has a clause similar in spirit, doesn't it?
  - teraflop 12y ago
    Similar in spirit, yes, but Facebook's clause seems to be much, much broader, even though both operate by the same mechanism (using license termination as the penalty). Contrary to the stereotypes about "viral" licensing, the GPLv3's patent grant seems to be very narrowly tailored. It says that if you redistribute GPL'd code while "knowingly relying" on patent rights that you own or were granted, then you must arrange to grant those specific patent rights to the recipients. It's equitable, in the sense that the rights you have to forego are the same ones that were granted to you: only those that would necessarily be infringed by using and distributing the software. Facebook's terms are similar to the extent that they cover patent claims "related to the Software." But the real difference (to my layman's eyes) is in the application to other patents. You're not allowed to enforce any patent claims against Facebook or its affiliates, whether or not those patents have anything to do with React. And in the reverse direction, if Facebook accuses you of infringing a patent of any kind, you have to forfeit the right to challenge the patent's validity. That's taking a relationship that's already heavily skewed towards big companies with huge patent arsenals, and making it even more lopsided.
- Cshelton 12y ago
  This is actual fairly common nowadays. And rightfully so, if you sue us for patent infringement....no you can not use our OPEN SOURCE stuff anymore. Seems pretty fair to me.
  - flurpitude 12y ago
    Seems to me the more problematic part is clause b: The license granted hereunder will terminate, automatically and without notice, for anyone that makes any claim (including by filing any lawsuit, assertion or other action) alleging ... (b) that any right in any patent claim of Facebook is invalid or unenforceable. Doesn't that mean that if Facebook sues you for patent infringement in something else you did (possibly unrelated to React) and you disagree, they can take away your licence to use React? In other words, Facebook could arbitrarily shut down your use of React by filing a spurious patent lawsuit against you. And if your use of React was critical to your business and Facebook didn't like the look of your business, that could be dangerous.
    - jasonhansel 12y ago
      In fact, it seems that they don't even need to sue you -- they could just "assert" that you violated their patents.
  - zaroth 12y ago
    I respect the right of any author to release their work under any license they see fit. And of course anyone is free to use React or not. So in that sense any license is fair. But there is an asymmetry here. Facebook offers the open source code license and you use it fairly and per the terms. Facebook then hypothetically steals your company's patented Crown Jewels. When you send them a C&D they retaliate by revoking your license. So now they've kicked your ass twice and you've done nothing to warrant it. That would not be what I call "fair".
    - jhall1468 12y ago
      I'm not terribly worried. At the end of the day if Facebook did this the patent revocation would likely be unenforceable. This would be a simple example of Unconscionability. You can't enforce a contract that is grossly unfair. This entire thing is an anti-patent troll measure.
- danielhunt 12y ago
  Doesn't this allow Facebook to abuse you and/or your patents, and if you try to fight them for doing so, they can revoke your permission to use React?
  - themgt 12y ago
    If you're not a believer in software patents (and assuming FB won't sue you for any unrelated patent infringement you'd want to retaliate for), attaching doomsday patent clauses to OSS software actually seems like a pretty good way to shut down software patent lawsuits.
dang 12y ago
Yes, we changed the title from "Facebook can terminate your use of React if you infringe on their patents" for (I hope) obvious reasons.
- wtallis 12y ago
  What, the "obvious" reason that you could always choose to not defend yourself against Facebook's accusation? The very last clause of the license has almost exactly the effect implied by the original title, which presupposes only that Facebook has patents covering React with which to prevent your use without a patent license.

peterhunt 12y ago

That's not what it says. The license granted hereunder will terminate, automatically and without notice, for anyone that makes any claim (including by filing any lawsuit, assertion or other action) alleging (a) direct, indirect, or contributory infringement or inducement to infringe any patent: (i) by Facebook or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates, whether or not such claim is related to the Software, So if you're a patent troll, you don't get to use React.

tptacek 12y ago
The GPL has a clause similar in spirit, doesn't it?
- teraflop 12y ago
  Similar in spirit, yes, but Facebook's clause seems to be much, much broader, even though both operate by the same mechanism (using license termination as the penalty). Contrary to the stereotypes about "viral" licensing, the GPLv3's patent grant seems to be very narrowly tailored. It says that if you redistribute GPL'd code while "knowingly relying" on patent rights that you own or were granted, then you must arrange to grant those specific patent rights to the recipients. It's equitable, in the sense that the rights you have to forego are the same ones that were granted to you: only those that would necessarily be infringed by using and distributing the software. Facebook's terms are similar to the extent that they cover patent claims "related to the Software." But the real difference (to my layman's eyes) is in the application to other patents. You're not allowed to enforce any patent claims against Facebook or its affiliates, whether or not those patents have anything to do with React. And in the reverse direction, if Facebook accuses you of infringing a patent of any kind, you have to forfeit the right to challenge the patent's validity. That's taking a relationship that's already heavily skewed towards big companies with huge patent arsenals, and making it even more lopsided.
Cshelton 12y ago
This is actual fairly common nowadays. And rightfully so, if you sue us for patent infringement....no you can not use our OPEN SOURCE stuff anymore. Seems pretty fair to me.
- flurpitude 12y ago
  Seems to me the more problematic part is clause b: The license granted hereunder will terminate, automatically and without notice, for anyone that makes any claim (including by filing any lawsuit, assertion or other action) alleging ... (b) that any right in any patent claim of Facebook is invalid or unenforceable. Doesn't that mean that if Facebook sues you for patent infringement in something else you did (possibly unrelated to React) and you disagree, they can take away your licence to use React? In other words, Facebook could arbitrarily shut down your use of React by filing a spurious patent lawsuit against you. And if your use of React was critical to your business and Facebook didn't like the look of your business, that could be dangerous.
  - jasonhansel 12y ago
    In fact, it seems that they don't even need to sue you -- they could just "assert" that you violated their patents.
- zaroth 12y ago
  I respect the right of any author to release their work under any license they see fit. And of course anyone is free to use React or not. So in that sense any license is fair. But there is an asymmetry here. Facebook offers the open source code license and you use it fairly and per the terms. Facebook then hypothetically steals your company's patented Crown Jewels. When you send them a C&D they retaliate by revoking your license. So now they've kicked your ass twice and you've done nothing to warrant it. That would not be what I call "fair".
  - jhall1468 12y ago
    I'm not terribly worried. At the end of the day if Facebook did this the patent revocation would likely be unenforceable. This would be a simple example of Unconscionability. You can't enforce a contract that is grossly unfair. This entire thing is an anti-patent troll measure.
danielhunt 12y ago
Doesn't this allow Facebook to abuse you and/or your patents, and if you try to fight them for doing so, they can revoke your permission to use React?
- themgt 12y ago
  If you're not a believer in software patents (and assuming FB won't sue you for any unrelated patent infringement you'd want to retaliate for), attaching doomsday patent clauses to OSS software actually seems like a pretty good way to shut down software patent lawsuits.

dang 12y ago

Yes, we changed the title from "Facebook can terminate your use of React if you infringe on their patents" for (I hope) obvious reasons.

wtallis 12y ago
What, the "obvious" reason that you could always choose to not defend yourself against Facebook's accusation? The very last clause of the license has almost exactly the effect implied by the original title, which presupposes only that Facebook has patents covering React with which to prevent your use without a patent license.