5 ms·

What would you suggest as a solution to this? What should Facebook do?

benologist 12y ago
It's a near-certainty that any tech giant is going to have patent issues with any other tech giant, not bundling the consequences of this with their open source licenses would be a good start.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
andrea_sdl 12y ago
I'm curious too. :)
anfedorov 12y ago
I am not a lawyer, but perhaps they could just skip the second paragraph? I understand the motivation behind discouraging people from suing you, but putting "you will not sue us for patent infringement" into a software license is a bit weird.
- matthewmacleod 12y ago
  I've raised this many times before, but you shall not sue us is emphatically not part of the software license. It's a separate grant of patent rights.
  - anfedorov 12y ago
    Are you nitpicking legal semantics (including something in one agreement or another), or saying it's possible to legally use React-Native while suing Facebook for completely unrelated patent infringement?
    - realityking 12y ago
      INAL. You have to differentiate between copyright and patents. From the perspective of copyright you're perfectly in the clear, the grant of rights that's part of the BSD license will not be revoked. What will be revoked is the right to Facebook's patents insofar they apply to React.js. First of all that that requires, that Facebook actually has patents that apply to React.js. It also means you're no worse off than without a patent grant. I prefer the Apache 2.0 wording, but this seems to be blown widely out of proportion.
      - magicalist 12y ago
        > It also means you're no worse off than without a patent grant. No, see discussion above re: implicit and explicit patent grants. You don't fall back to an implicit grant when an explicit one is revoked.
    - matthewmacleod 12y ago
      The latter. It is absolutely possible to legally use React while going ahead and suing Facebook. You do not lose your license to React by suing Facebook. What you do lose is an explicit grant of additional patent rights - the grant given in the PATENTS file. Note that there is no specification therein regarding what patents might be covered; it's completely possible that none of Facebook's patents have anything to do with React. I haven't looked. in any case, patents are totally distinct from you license to use React.
      - anfedorov 12y ago
        OK, so I can legally use React-Native in my app while suing Facebook for unrelated patent infringement. I also can claim the patent they are suing me for infringing is invalid while continuing to use React-Native. Would it be practically advisable to do so?
      - geofft 12y ago
        > It is absolutely possible to legally use React while going ahead and suing Facebook. Only if it's possible to use React without infringing (or licensing) any Facebook patents. "Use" is not just about copyright. (Which, as you point out, is plausible; there's just no reason to believe it's guaranteed to be true.)
danschumann 12y ago
It says if you get into a patent disagreement with their company you can no longer use react, whether they sue you, or you sue them. I'm not planning on suing facebook, but if they sue me, suddenly I have 2 problems, the lawsuit, and not being able to use react anymore. It should only regard to react. If the clause is to protect their right to develop react, it should only pertain to such.
- mbrock 12y ago
  Please don't spread fear and uncertainty based on incorrect understanding of licensing. Suing Facebook does not void your license to use React. It voids your additional patent grant. That's different.
  - kendallpark 12y ago
    So what does the additional patent grant actually grant?
    - realityking 12y ago
      The guarantee that Facebook won't sue you if they have patents that apply to React.js. To put it simple, without the patent grant you'd be worse off. But with the Apache 2.0 version you'd be better off.
      - nostrademons 12y ago
        Not quite - there's an implied patent license that comes with licenses that mention nothing about patents, because otherwise nobody could use the code. Once the license explicitly gives a patent grant, it replaces that implied patent license. Think of it like C++ default constructors. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9113515 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9113515

It's a near-certainty that any tech giant is going to have patent issues with any other tech giant, not bundling the consequences of this with their open source licenses would be a good start.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

andrea_sdl 12y ago

I'm curious too. :)

anfedorov 12y ago

I am not a lawyer, but perhaps they could just skip the second paragraph? I understand the motivation behind discouraging people from suing you, but putting "you will not sue us for patent infringement" into a software license is a bit weird.

matthewmacleod 12y ago
I've raised this many times before, but you shall not sue us is emphatically not part of the software license. It's a separate grant of patent rights.
- anfedorov 12y ago
  Are you nitpicking legal semantics (including something in one agreement or another), or saying it's possible to legally use React-Native while suing Facebook for completely unrelated patent infringement?
  - realityking 12y ago
    INAL. You have to differentiate between copyright and patents. From the perspective of copyright you're perfectly in the clear, the grant of rights that's part of the BSD license will not be revoked. What will be revoked is the right to Facebook's patents insofar they apply to React.js. First of all that that requires, that Facebook actually has patents that apply to React.js. It also means you're no worse off than without a patent grant. I prefer the Apache 2.0 wording, but this seems to be blown widely out of proportion.
    - magicalist 12y ago
      > It also means you're no worse off than without a patent grant. No, see discussion above re: implicit and explicit patent grants. You don't fall back to an implicit grant when an explicit one is revoked.
  - matthewmacleod 12y ago
    The latter. It is absolutely possible to legally use React while going ahead and suing Facebook. You do not lose your license to React by suing Facebook. What you do lose is an explicit grant of additional patent rights - the grant given in the PATENTS file. Note that there is no specification therein regarding what patents might be covered; it's completely possible that none of Facebook's patents have anything to do with React. I haven't looked. in any case, patents are totally distinct from you license to use React.
    - anfedorov 12y ago
      OK, so I can legally use React-Native in my app while suing Facebook for unrelated patent infringement. I also can claim the patent they are suing me for infringing is invalid while continuing to use React-Native. Would it be practically advisable to do so?
    - geofft 12y ago
      > It is absolutely possible to legally use React while going ahead and suing Facebook. Only if it's possible to use React without infringing (or licensing) any Facebook patents. "Use" is not just about copyright. (Which, as you point out, is plausible; there's just no reason to believe it's guaranteed to be true.)

danschumann 12y ago

It says if you get into a patent disagreement with their company you can no longer use react, whether they sue you, or you sue them. I'm not planning on suing facebook, but if they sue me, suddenly I have 2 problems, the lawsuit, and not being able to use react anymore. It should only regard to react. If the clause is to protect their right to develop react, it should only pertain to such.

mbrock 12y ago
Please don't spread fear and uncertainty based on incorrect understanding of licensing. Suing Facebook does not void your license to use React. It voids your additional patent grant. That's different.
- kendallpark 12y ago
  So what does the additional patent grant actually grant?
  - realityking 12y ago
    The guarantee that Facebook won't sue you if they have patents that apply to React.js. To put it simple, without the patent grant you'd be worse off. But with the Apache 2.0 version you'd be better off.
    - nostrademons 12y ago
      Not quite - there's an implied patent license that comes with licenses that mention nothing about patents, because otherwise nobody could use the code. Once the license explicitly gives a patent grant, it replaces that implied patent license. Think of it like C++ default constructors. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9113515 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9113515