5 ms·

Sadly, the much-discussed explosive second half of the PATENTS file is still present: https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/91b45641b8bfbdecace941125a7a415aad1

by zellyn 12y ago

Sadly, the much-discussed explosive second half of the PATENTS file is still present: https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/91b45641b8bfbdecace941125a7a415aad1ebbce/PATENTS https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/91b45641b8bfbdecace94...

shabbyrobe 12y ago
In spite of being here several times a day, every day, I somehow completely missed this discussion. For anyone else in my situation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9111849 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9111849
loceng 12y ago
Link to previous discussion(s)? Having a difficult time understanding it in layman's terms.
loceng 12y ago
Is it possible for another company to create something like React?
- mateuszf 12y ago
  Yes.
- malandrew 12y ago
  Why a company: https://github.com/Raynos/mercury https://github.com/Raynos/mercury All react best practices converge on what mercury has done out of the box since day one. React's advantage is it's community. There are more docs, examples and tutorials.
olov 12y ago
"much-discussed" by "less-informed" I'd say. There is nothing sad about React PATENTS file. 1. React source code is licensed under the Modified BSD license. 2. React also comes with a conditional patent grant. Here "conditional" means that the patent grant may terminate under some conditions. It does not terminate 1. Most BSD and MIT-licensed software you use comes without a patent grant at all. Still sad?
- ralmidani 12y ago
  Remaining silent on patents is better than issuing an unfair and one-sided patent license. If Facebook doesn't intend to assert its patents aggressively, why does it want to prevent users of React from defending themselves?
  - olov 12y ago
    Now, I don't know what makes things "better" for you but from the perspective of most licensees it is probably legally better to have a conditional patent grant than none at all, most of the time. But it will vary depending on, for example, the licensors (their) and licensees (your) patent portfolios and intention to enforce those aggressively as well as your strategies of defense. There's a huge difference between a company such as, say Oracle and Facebook, here. Granting patents in the context of permissively licensed open source is a generous act and making the grant conditional is a way of not giving up your ability to form the strongest possible defense when you're brought into patent litigation. If you have been following along the recent years events (where is that patent apocalypse, anyone?) then it should be no surprise why companies need to do that. Conditional patent grants are not new. Apache License v2.0 has a conditional patent grant [http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0]. Google added a conditional patent grant to WebM, complementing its Modified BSD license [http://www.webmproject.org/license/additional/ http://www.webmproject.org/license/additional/]. Google's Dart project is licensed under Modified BSD and has a.. you guessed it - conditional patent grant [https://code.google.com/p/dart/source/browse/trunk/dart/PATENTS https://code.google.com/p/dart/source/browse/trunk/dart/PATE...].
    - ralmidani 12y ago
      None of the patent grants you mentioned are as one-sided as Facebook's. My problem is not with a conditional patent grant. My problem is with Facebook preventing React users from defending themselves against lawsuits for unrelated patents. Apache, GPL, MPL, etc. have retaliation clauses that terminate your patent license only if you sue (or in some cases, countersue) in relation to the covered software. Facebook's patent grant says you can never sue Facebook, while being vulnerable to being sued by Facebook for anything but React. Edited for clarity.

by zellyn 12y ago

shabbyrobe 12y ago

In spite of being here several times a day, every day, I somehow completely missed this discussion. For anyone else in my situation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9111849 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9111849

loceng 12y ago

Link to previous discussion(s)? Having a difficult time understanding it in layman's terms.

loceng 12y ago

Is it possible for another company to create something like React?

mateuszf 12y ago
Yes.
malandrew 12y ago
Why a company: https://github.com/Raynos/mercury https://github.com/Raynos/mercury All react best practices converge on what mercury has done out of the box since day one. React's advantage is it's community. There are more docs, examples and tutorials.

olov 12y ago

"much-discussed" by "less-informed" I'd say. There is nothing sad about React PATENTS file. 1. React source code is licensed under the Modified BSD license. 2. React also comes with a conditional patent grant. Here "conditional" means that the patent grant may terminate under some conditions. It does not terminate 1. Most BSD and MIT-licensed software you use comes without a patent grant at all. Still sad?

ralmidani 12y ago
Remaining silent on patents is better than issuing an unfair and one-sided patent license. If Facebook doesn't intend to assert its patents aggressively, why does it want to prevent users of React from defending themselves?
- olov 12y ago
  Now, I don't know what makes things "better" for you but from the perspective of most licensees it is probably legally better to have a conditional patent grant than none at all, most of the time. But it will vary depending on, for example, the licensors (their) and licensees (your) patent portfolios and intention to enforce those aggressively as well as your strategies of defense. There's a huge difference between a company such as, say Oracle and Facebook, here. Granting patents in the context of permissively licensed open source is a generous act and making the grant conditional is a way of not giving up your ability to form the strongest possible defense when you're brought into patent litigation. If you have been following along the recent years events (where is that patent apocalypse, anyone?) then it should be no surprise why companies need to do that. Conditional patent grants are not new. Apache License v2.0 has a conditional patent grant [http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0]. Google added a conditional patent grant to WebM, complementing its Modified BSD license [http://www.webmproject.org/license/additional/ http://www.webmproject.org/license/additional/]. Google's Dart project is licensed under Modified BSD and has a.. you guessed it - conditional patent grant [https://code.google.com/p/dart/source/browse/trunk/dart/PATENTS https://code.google.com/p/dart/source/browse/trunk/dart/PATE...].
  - ralmidani 12y ago
    None of the patent grants you mentioned are as one-sided as Facebook's. My problem is not with a conditional patent grant. My problem is with Facebook preventing React users from defending themselves against lawsuits for unrelated patents. Apache, GPL, MPL, etc. have retaliation clauses that terminate your patent license only if you sue (or in some cases, countersue) in relation to the covered software. Facebook's patent grant says you can never sue Facebook, while being vulnerable to being sued by Facebook for anything but React. Edited for clarity.