3 ms·

No. The license has a chilling clause that says if you ever suggest that any Facebook patent might be invalid, your license to use their code is automatically r

No. The license has a chilling clause that says if you ever suggest that any Facebook patent might be invalid, your license to use their code is automatically revoked. And in corporate world, that means any comment of any of your employees in an official capacity. Edit downvotes, well maybe the text of the clause will help > The license granted hereunder will terminate, automatically and without notice, for anyone that makes any claim ... by ... assertion or other action ... alleging .. that any right in any patent claim of Facebook is invalid or unenforceable. > https://github.com/facebook/fbcunn/blob/master/PATENTS https://github.com/facebook/fbcunn/blob/master/PATENTS

randunel 12y ago
So... I think Facebook has at least one unenforceable patent in my country. There, I may no longer use their code :D
callum85 12y ago
Who is downvoting this? Could you comment and explain why?
- SixSigma 12y ago
  Was probably because I asserted it without citation.
kriro 12y ago
Thanks for sharing this. It brings up some interesting questions. Does this mean React cannot be used by European government agencies since they claim (via law) that patents are not enforcable? What if I merely live in the EU and thus implicitly agree to the laws in Europw. Does that fall under "other action" or would I have to explicitly state that I think their patents are not enforceable. What if I have actively participated in the anti software patents movement? Do I have to single out specific Facebook patents for this clause to trigger or is it enough that they are caught in the general umbrella? Edit: I'm assuming this is found on all the stuff they release and not just fbcunn? At least it's also true for react: https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/PATENTS https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/PATENTS
- Denvercoder9 12y ago
  > What if I merely live in the EU and thus implicitly agree to the laws in Europw. Does that fall under "other action" or would I have to explicitly state that I think their patents are not enforceable. It doesn't matter. If their patents aren't valid where you live, you don't need their patent grant.
  - kriro 12y ago
    If I live where I do and thus could be said to agree with the fact that their patents cannot be enforced here it still matters if I want to use it for software that is used elsewhere. The way I read it I could be constructed as claiming their patents are not enforcable here and thus the grant would be revoked in countries where I'd need it (not here).
matthewmacleod 12y ago
…if you ever suggest that any Facebook patent might be invalid, your license to use their code is automatically revoked. This is not correct — your license to use any patent of Facebook's that covers the software is revoked. You are still not infringing copyright on the software by using it, but you will no longer be protected by Facebook's patent grant, which is in addition to your license to use the software. This is a boilerplate patent grant, and it doesn't mean that Facebook holds any patents on e.g. React. To be clear, this parent grant is in addition to your license to use the software and as a result does not restrict your freedom in any way, versus the license not being granted at all.
- stupidcar 12y ago
  While it's true that you only lose your license to the patents, not the code, I don't see how you can argue the grant isn't a restriction of your freedom? Surely any license whose conferred rights are predicated on the recipient not being able to take particular actions, up to and including saying particular things, must be considered to be restricting freedoms, even if those restrictions are in exchange for other freedoms granted? Of course, all free software licenses involve some exchange of freedoms: You give up your ability to publish closed-source modifications of the software in exchange for being able to use and modify it at all. The question is whether the freedoms you are asked to give up are reasonable in exchange for what you gain. A patent grant that restricts your freedom to launch patent infringement litigation against other users of the software seem reasonable to me. Whereas a grant that is invalidated simply by alleging, through any action, that any of the original author's patents are invalid, does not.
- guscost 12y ago
  Are you saying that they could not come after you for simply using React (even if you were to dispute the relevant patents in court), or just that there is no evidence that they could?
  - matthewmacleod 12y ago
    Facebook cannot 'come after you' for using React if you have not accused them of patent infringement. They can 'come after you' iff you have accused them of that, and you are using their software in such a way that a parent of theirs is violated. It's pretty straightforward: - Facebook has released some open source software. In the case of React, it's under the BSD license. - You can use this software however you want, in accordance with the license. - In addition to granting you a license to use the software, Facebook has granted you a license to any patents they own that cover the software. - There is no enumeration or claim that any patents do cover the software. - Your license to use any hypothetical patent that does cover the software will be revoked if you make a claim—legal or otherwise—that Facebook has infringed any patent. - At that point, you will no longer have a license to use any patent that covers the software. - If you are subsequently using the software in a way that infringes one of their patents, Facebook would legitimately be able to claim patent infringement.

randunel 12y ago

So... I think Facebook has at least one unenforceable patent in my country. There, I may no longer use their code :D

callum85 12y ago

Who is downvoting this? Could you comment and explain why?

SixSigma 12y ago
Was probably because I asserted it without citation.

kriro 12y ago

Thanks for sharing this. It brings up some interesting questions. Does this mean React cannot be used by European government agencies since they claim (via law) that patents are not enforcable? What if I merely live in the EU and thus implicitly agree to the laws in Europw. Does that fall under "other action" or would I have to explicitly state that I think their patents are not enforceable. What if I have actively participated in the anti software patents movement? Do I have to single out specific Facebook patents for this clause to trigger or is it enough that they are caught in the general umbrella? Edit: I'm assuming this is found on all the stuff they release and not just fbcunn? At least it's also true for react: https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/PATENTS https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/PATENTS

Denvercoder9 12y ago
> What if I merely live in the EU and thus implicitly agree to the laws in Europw. Does that fall under "other action" or would I have to explicitly state that I think their patents are not enforceable. It doesn't matter. If their patents aren't valid where you live, you don't need their patent grant.
- kriro 12y ago
  If I live where I do and thus could be said to agree with the fact that their patents cannot be enforced here it still matters if I want to use it for software that is used elsewhere. The way I read it I could be constructed as claiming their patents are not enforcable here and thus the grant would be revoked in countries where I'd need it (not here).

matthewmacleod 12y ago

…if you ever suggest that any Facebook patent might be invalid, your license to use their code is automatically revoked. This is not correct — your license to use any patent of Facebook's that covers the software is revoked. You are still not infringing copyright on the software by using it, but you will no longer be protected by Facebook's patent grant, which is in addition to your license to use the software. This is a boilerplate patent grant, and it doesn't mean that Facebook holds any patents on e.g. React. To be clear, this parent grant is in addition to your license to use the software and as a result does not restrict your freedom in any way, versus the license not being granted at all.

stupidcar 12y ago
While it's true that you only lose your license to the patents, not the code, I don't see how you can argue the grant isn't a restriction of your freedom? Surely any license whose conferred rights are predicated on the recipient not being able to take particular actions, up to and including saying particular things, must be considered to be restricting freedoms, even if those restrictions are in exchange for other freedoms granted? Of course, all free software licenses involve some exchange of freedoms: You give up your ability to publish closed-source modifications of the software in exchange for being able to use and modify it at all. The question is whether the freedoms you are asked to give up are reasonable in exchange for what you gain. A patent grant that restricts your freedom to launch patent infringement litigation against other users of the software seem reasonable to me. Whereas a grant that is invalidated simply by alleging, through any action, that any of the original author's patents are invalid, does not.
guscost 12y ago
Are you saying that they could not come after you for simply using React (even if you were to dispute the relevant patents in court), or just that there is no evidence that they could?
- matthewmacleod 12y ago
  Facebook cannot 'come after you' for using React if you have not accused them of patent infringement. They can 'come after you' iff you have accused them of that, and you are using their software in such a way that a parent of theirs is violated. It's pretty straightforward: - Facebook has released some open source software. In the case of React, it's under the BSD license. - You can use this software however you want, in accordance with the license. - In addition to granting you a license to use the software, Facebook has granted you a license to any patents they own that cover the software. - There is no enumeration or claim that any patents do cover the software. - Your license to use any hypothetical patent that does cover the software will be revoked if you make a claim—legal or otherwise—that Facebook has infringed any patent. - At that point, you will no longer have a license to use any patent that covers the software. - If you are subsequently using the software in a way that infringes one of their patents, Facebook would legitimately be able to claim patent infringement.