3 ms·

IANAL, but this seems to imply that, if you use React, Facebook (and affiliates) can infringe on any of your patents with impunity -- you can't even verbally ac

IANAL, but this seems to imply that, if you use React, Facebook (and affiliates) can infringe on any of your patents with impunity -- you can't even verbally accuse them of infringement. The same applies to Facebook's other open source projects (e.g. immutable-js), so one must also avoid any libraries that depend on those projects (even if it's a dependency of a dependency of a...) This seems to conflict with the spirit of OSS, since the grant doesn't apply to modified versions of React (i.e., trying to fork React could result in a lawsuit). Again, IANAL, so I might be misreading this.

jasonhansel 12y ago
Also, as pointed out in previous discussions of this clause, this is significantly more restrictive than the Apache license. This would make me quite hesitant about using React for any project of significant size (especially for a large enterprise). I saw a post earlier about Netflix using React -- I wonder if they know about this.
- ChrisBland 12y ago
  I think companies like Netflix et al are in a mutually assured destruction scenario with Facebook and others. They have the lawyers in house that can defend, counter sue, etc & by the current state of the patent system I'm sure there is something Netflix could try to sue FB for & I would guess neither one wants to fire the first shot in the war. The companies where this will be an issue for is smaller companies that may be in the right but can't afford a defense. INAL, I'm also a big user of React, while this license does irk me a bit, in reality if I were to ever go up against FB's legal team, I know I would most likely lose anyways. Don't mean to be defeatist about it, but its the state of our current legal system.
pachydermic 12y ago
This is definitely something I'd want a lawyer's opinion on. The language is both dense and intimidating, but I can't really understand legalese.
sesutton 12y ago
IANAL either but I think the part about modifications by third parties means that you don't get a license to an additional Facebook patent you might infringe by modifying it. So if you change React to add some functionality that infringes on a patent Facebook holds you don't automatically get a license to that patent.

jasonhansel 12y ago

Also, as pointed out in previous discussions of this clause, this is significantly more restrictive than the Apache license. This would make me quite hesitant about using React for any project of significant size (especially for a large enterprise). I saw a post earlier about Netflix using React -- I wonder if they know about this.

ChrisBland 12y ago
I think companies like Netflix et al are in a mutually assured destruction scenario with Facebook and others. They have the lawyers in house that can defend, counter sue, etc & by the current state of the patent system I'm sure there is something Netflix could try to sue FB for & I would guess neither one wants to fire the first shot in the war. The companies where this will be an issue for is smaller companies that may be in the right but can't afford a defense. INAL, I'm also a big user of React, while this license does irk me a bit, in reality if I were to ever go up against FB's legal team, I know I would most likely lose anyways. Don't mean to be defeatist about it, but its the state of our current legal system.

pachydermic 12y ago

This is definitely something I'd want a lawyer's opinion on. The language is both dense and intimidating, but I can't really understand legalese.

sesutton 12y ago

IANAL either but I think the part about modifications by third parties means that you don't get a license to an additional Facebook patent you might infringe by modifying it. So if you change React to add some functionality that infringes on a patent Facebook holds you don't automatically get a license to that patent.