3 ms·

What are your thoughts on, and how do you let your clients know (since you're a web agency?), that using anything built by Facebook comes with a huge business r

by loceng 12y ago

What are your thoughts on, and how do you let your clients know (since you're a web agency?), that using anything built by Facebook comes with a huge business risk? With the included PATENTS file, if Facebook decides a patent they filed is something you violate then they will sue you or ask for a royalty. If you try to fight it or even suggest it's not valid then your license for React and all other Facebook projects becomes voided. This gives incredible leverage and power to Facebook for anyone developing their core business with anything they've made/open sourced. EDIT: https://github.com/Raynos/mercury https://github.com/Raynos/mercury was suggested as an alternative, I'm not sure how viable it is for different types of projects.

dada78641 12y ago
It's undue paranoia. It says essentially the same thing as the Apache 'Grant of Patent License' section. Namely, if you instigate a patent lawsuit, the free patent license offered by Facebook no longer applies. It would be impossible for Facebook or Apache to engage in patent lawsuits if they did not include this termination clause. Besides, Facebook is gonna sue you if you violate their patents, regardless of whether you use React or not. And the termination pertains to the patent license. They can't restrict your access to a BSD licensed software package.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - matthewmacleod 12y ago
    No, this is not correct. Please stop spreading this misinformation. Your license to use React is not contingent on 'not to sue them' – however, the additional patent grant that they give you is contingent on this. This patent grant is in addition to your license to use the software. If you accuse Facebook of violating one of your patents, then you automatically lose the right to use any of theirs. You do not lose your license to use the software, which is a totally orthogonal issue.
    - WhitneyLand 12y ago
      It may not be correct, but do you deny that it's already been repeated enough that it'll take another 6-12 months of wasted hallway conversations discrediting it? When that BillG email for money urban legend first came out relatives literally called just to ask about it.
      - loceng 12y ago
        IANAL however it's more correct than people realize. Facebook is changing the BSD license from being an implied license to being an explicit license, so it's not the same as BSD license via DannyBee (open source lawyer), https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9113505 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9113505 EDIT: Changed ANAL to IANAL...
    - loceng 12y ago
      Facebook is changing the BSD license from being an implied license to being an explicit license, so it's not the same as BSD license; via DannyBee (open source lawyer), https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9113505 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9113505
      - swhipple 12y ago
        I think it's worth mentioning that software copyright licenses (like BSD) cover a particular implementation (a.k.a. "creative work") while U.S. patent licenses cover a design. The likely reason for Facebook including the explicit patent license is that with an implicit license it is unclear if derivative works also share the rights to the granted patents (e.g. "can I take part of the implementation that utilizes a patented design and use it in another project?") [1]. The implicit patent rights of the BSD license may or may not extend to derivative works or different distributors, but the Facebook PATENTS file clarifies that it does not and avoids the ambiguity. For places outside of the U.S., that do not care about U.S. patent law, but do respect copyright, the BSD license is still in effect. I don't think that simply using Facebook software will open up your business to a "huge business risk" -- any more so than you'd be doing by working on the assumption of an implied patent right grant on the derivative works permitted by the BSD license. IANAL. [1] From the same thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9113515 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9113515
- loceng 12y ago
  This isn't accurate according to what DannyBee says, an open source lawyer - please read my comment above at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9256093 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9256093 that includes copy/paste of a comment he's made before. TL;DR: Facebook is changing the BSD license from being an implied license to being an explicit license, so it's not the same as BSD license.
  - dada78641 12y ago
    This raises some questions: * If Facebook is "changing" the BSD license, why is the BSD license included verbatim and in full? * Also, why does the PATENTS file explicitly state that it is an "ADDITIONAL grant of patent rights"? * Why don't I see comments like the one I originally replied to being posted on articles pertaining to Apache? They have almost exactly the same wording in their statement. I'll believe claims of Facebook "changing the BSD license" when they actually change the BSD license.
    - loceng 12y ago
      It's easier to piggyback on something, for practicality reasons, and perhaps to piggyback on the perception people have of it (maliciously or not). ADDITIONAL could simply mean added to, not necessarily extra or supplementary - added, as in, included with - an overlay of BSD. I agree, it'd be good if Facebook was more transparent as to what it all means. Stating that you'll believe it if they modify the actual BSD license, it's far more easy to take an existing - and generally accepted license - and then make an addition instead of making changes to it, no? So you don't have to call it something other than BSD?
matthewmacleod 12y ago
You have not been completely accurate here. Using code written by Facebook is not a huge business risk, unless you consider the use of any open-source code to be a business risk. The PATENTS file that Facebook distributes with it's open-source projects grants additional guaranteed rights. It does not place any additional restrictions or risks on your use of the software, above and beyond any that exist with other licenses that do not grant patent rights. If you "try to fight it or even suggest it's not valid" then you do not lose your license for react and all other Facebook projects – what you lose is the additional patent rights grant. That's a huge difference!
- loceng 12y ago
  I'm copy/pasting what user DannyBee (his about on HN: "I'm an open source lawyer who hacks on compilers" via https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=DannyBee https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=DannyBee ) has said here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9113324 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9113324 - he's replying to something another user said - "Facebook is granting you additional rights on top of the BSD license. In the worst case, where you do something that causes the patent rights to be revoked, you're still left with the same rights you have under the BSD license. This is unambiguously safer to use than if they had released it under a vanilla BSD license. As for why Facebook did this, they're most likely trying to give away additional rights while still maintaining the ability to use these patents defensively, in the event someone sues them for infringing a different patent." This is 100% totally and completely wrong :) The BSD license normally includes an implied patent license. It says " Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met .. " This grants an implied patent license to the patents necessary to actually do this, as long as you meet the restrictions. This is actually well settled law. You don't get to give people stuff unrestricted, and say "you can use this for free", and then say "just kidding, what i meant was, you can use this for free as long as you pay me for the patents" However, when you do what facebook has done, and give an explicit license, you have overwritten the terms of that implied license, and you get no implied license. So it is not only "not unambiguously safer", you are not "left with the same rights you had under the bsd license if it is revoked". This is because if you revoke the explicit grant, you get nothing in terms of patents. But the implicit grant is not revokable unless you violate the copyright license. So sorry, but this is not "better than the default" and does not in fact, help you.

by loceng 12y ago

dada78641 12y ago

It's undue paranoia. It says essentially the same thing as the Apache 'Grant of Patent License' section. Namely, if you instigate a patent lawsuit, the free patent license offered by Facebook no longer applies. It would be impossible for Facebook or Apache to engage in patent lawsuits if they did not include this termination clause. Besides, Facebook is gonna sue you if you violate their patents, regardless of whether you use React or not. And the termination pertains to the patent license. They can't restrict your access to a BSD licensed software package.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- matthewmacleod 12y ago
  No, this is not correct. Please stop spreading this misinformation. Your license to use React is not contingent on 'not to sue them' – however, the additional patent grant that they give you is contingent on this. This patent grant is in addition to your license to use the software. If you accuse Facebook of violating one of your patents, then you automatically lose the right to use any of theirs. You do not lose your license to use the software, which is a totally orthogonal issue.
  - WhitneyLand 12y ago
    It may not be correct, but do you deny that it's already been repeated enough that it'll take another 6-12 months of wasted hallway conversations discrediting it? When that BillG email for money urban legend first came out relatives literally called just to ask about it.
    - loceng 12y ago
      IANAL however it's more correct than people realize. Facebook is changing the BSD license from being an implied license to being an explicit license, so it's not the same as BSD license via DannyBee (open source lawyer), https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9113505 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9113505 EDIT: Changed ANAL to IANAL...
  - loceng 12y ago
    Facebook is changing the BSD license from being an implied license to being an explicit license, so it's not the same as BSD license; via DannyBee (open source lawyer), https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9113505 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9113505
    - swhipple 12y ago
      I think it's worth mentioning that software copyright licenses (like BSD) cover a particular implementation (a.k.a. "creative work") while U.S. patent licenses cover a design. The likely reason for Facebook including the explicit patent license is that with an implicit license it is unclear if derivative works also share the rights to the granted patents (e.g. "can I take part of the implementation that utilizes a patented design and use it in another project?") [1]. The implicit patent rights of the BSD license may or may not extend to derivative works or different distributors, but the Facebook PATENTS file clarifies that it does not and avoids the ambiguity. For places outside of the U.S., that do not care about U.S. patent law, but do respect copyright, the BSD license is still in effect. I don't think that simply using Facebook software will open up your business to a "huge business risk" -- any more so than you'd be doing by working on the assumption of an implied patent right grant on the derivative works permitted by the BSD license. IANAL. [1] From the same thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9113515 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9113515
loceng 12y ago
This isn't accurate according to what DannyBee says, an open source lawyer - please read my comment above at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9256093 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9256093 that includes copy/paste of a comment he's made before. TL;DR: Facebook is changing the BSD license from being an implied license to being an explicit license, so it's not the same as BSD license.
- dada78641 12y ago
  This raises some questions: * If Facebook is "changing" the BSD license, why is the BSD license included verbatim and in full? * Also, why does the PATENTS file explicitly state that it is an "ADDITIONAL grant of patent rights"? * Why don't I see comments like the one I originally replied to being posted on articles pertaining to Apache? They have almost exactly the same wording in their statement. I'll believe claims of Facebook "changing the BSD license" when they actually change the BSD license.
  - loceng 12y ago
    It's easier to piggyback on something, for practicality reasons, and perhaps to piggyback on the perception people have of it (maliciously or not). ADDITIONAL could simply mean added to, not necessarily extra or supplementary - added, as in, included with - an overlay of BSD. I agree, it'd be good if Facebook was more transparent as to what it all means. Stating that you'll believe it if they modify the actual BSD license, it's far more easy to take an existing - and generally accepted license - and then make an addition instead of making changes to it, no? So you don't have to call it something other than BSD?

matthewmacleod 12y ago

You have not been completely accurate here. Using code written by Facebook is not a huge business risk, unless you consider the use of any open-source code to be a business risk. The PATENTS file that Facebook distributes with it's open-source projects grants additional guaranteed rights. It does not place any additional restrictions or risks on your use of the software, above and beyond any that exist with other licenses that do not grant patent rights. If you "try to fight it or even suggest it's not valid" then you do not lose your license for react and all other Facebook projects – what you lose is the additional patent rights grant. That's a huge difference!

loceng 12y ago
I'm copy/pasting what user DannyBee (his about on HN: "I'm an open source lawyer who hacks on compilers" via https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=DannyBee https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=DannyBee ) has said here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9113324 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9113324 - he's replying to something another user said - "Facebook is granting you additional rights on top of the BSD license. In the worst case, where you do something that causes the patent rights to be revoked, you're still left with the same rights you have under the BSD license. This is unambiguously safer to use than if they had released it under a vanilla BSD license. As for why Facebook did this, they're most likely trying to give away additional rights while still maintaining the ability to use these patents defensively, in the event someone sues them for infringing a different patent." This is 100% totally and completely wrong :) The BSD license normally includes an implied patent license. It says " Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met .. " This grants an implied patent license to the patents necessary to actually do this, as long as you meet the restrictions. This is actually well settled law. You don't get to give people stuff unrestricted, and say "you can use this for free", and then say "just kidding, what i meant was, you can use this for free as long as you pay me for the patents" However, when you do what facebook has done, and give an explicit license, you have overwritten the terms of that implied license, and you get no implied license. So it is not only "not unambiguously safer", you are not "left with the same rights you had under the bsd license if it is revoked". This is because if you revoke the explicit grant, you get nothing in terms of patents. But the implicit grant is not revokable unless you violate the copyright license. So sorry, but this is not "better than the default" and does not in fact, help you.