8 ms·

Updating Our Open Source Patent Grant

354 points by spicyj 12y ago

linuxhansl 12y ago
Why not just use the ASF 2.0? https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 It comes with a patent grant.
- tomjen3 12y ago
  Also, as far as I know, not compatible with the GPL.
  - pluma 12y ago
    Not compatible with GPLv2, but compatible with GPLv3: https://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html https://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html
chamakits 12y ago
This is what true commitment to open source looks like. Many companies may have remained silent about this and never address it. Their projects where already popular enough that they didn't really need to address the concerns that many had about them. But they did. And I'm sure it wasn't a trivial effort from whoever worked on getting this amended. So I applaud Facebook and the people that worked to address the communities concerns.
DannyBee 12y ago
I'm very glad Facebook was willing to take a step back here, evaluate people's concerns, and update the grant to address them. Most companies, when placed in the same position, would simply double down and tell people to go pound sand. The fact that they didn't, and in fact, actually talked with folks and addressed this head on, speaks volumes about them as a company.
- throwaway41597 12y ago
  edit: They actually kept a large part of the previous license. The new license will terminate if you initiate: "any Patent Assertion [...] (iii) against any party relating to the Software". So if you sue any React user for infringing any patent, even unrelated to React usage, your license for React will terminate. On the other hand, if Facebook uses your Apache 2.0 software, their license to your patents terminates only if they sue people for using your software. Isn't that asymmetric? /end edit Isn't there a loop-hole though? With the new license, if a FB affiliate sues you, you can only countersue the affiliate. So if FB asks an affiliate to sue you (maybe they sell the affiliate a couple of patents for instance), you can't counterclaim against FB, you can only counterclaim against the affiliate, which may not have a product. Is that correct? Thanks for raising awareness about the previous license. The new one definitely seems better.
  - DannyBee 12y ago
    It is asymmetric vs Apache 2.0, but that's like saying GPLv3 is asymmetric vs BSD. Past that, to be honest, there are always "loopholes" in all of these licenses related to transferring patents to entities/etc. Given any open source license, i can come up with a valid legal way for an entity to sue you over patents in it. But at some point, you have to trust that isn't the spirit/goal of the license, because if it is, you are kind f*cked anyway. That point, has, IMHO, been reached here now. Otherwise, it's generally not a sane problem to solve in licenses. It's an insanely complex area due to the ways it can happen. You generally don't want to try to shove all that in one document, it'll be a mess, and you'll never be able to update it for ambiguities discovered or change it with the times as law changes (OSS already has a large enough problem rev'ing licenses) Things like transfer problems are better solved by things like http://www.lotnet.com/ http://www.lotnet.com/, et al, which have specific, well thought out and targeted agreements. Yes, it makes it harder to tell your likelihood to get screwed, in the sense that you have to know not only the actual license, but whether they are a member of LOT or whatever, but i honestly can't see a good way around this.
    - throwaway41597 12y ago
SloopJon 12y ago
Here's a diff from the osquery project mentioned in the post: https://github.com/facebook/osquery/commit/159899a303d0859eb7c3768561544c48ccea42b3 https://github.com/facebook/osquery/commit/159899a303d0859eb...
dynamic 12y ago
[Lawyer, but not a patent lawyer] I was perplexed by the uproar on HN about the original patent language (in the thread announcing the release of React Native [1]). This kind of open-source patent license--which, in effect, allows Facebook to use its patents against users of React defensively but not offensively--is exactly what we need more of in the open source world. Why did people think that their defensive patent license was somehow worse than the industry standard (the MIT or BSD copyright license with no patent license, which made patent rights murky at best)? But this new language eliminates the major limitation on the original language, which was that the license would be terminated if you attempted to invalidate one of Facebook's patents or defensively argued that it was invalid or unenforceable (or even, according to a strict though implausible reading of the language, if you publicly stated that the patent was invalid). Glad to see Facebook paying attention, even if the original complaint was overblown. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9271246 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9271246
- superuser2 12y ago
  The problem was that under the original license, Facebook could sue you (as an initial aggressor) for an unrelated patent infringement, and if you claimed that the unrelated patent was invalid, you would lose your license/patent grant to i.e React. It did not just discourage you from suing Facebook, it made you defenseless if Facebook sued you. This appears to remove that language and creates the much more desirable balanced situation you are talking about (IANAL).
  - dynamic 12y ago
    I agree, and that's what I was saying in the second paragraph (I've edited it a bit to try to make that clearer). This is definitely an improvement from that original language. But I don't see how the original license was somehow worse than the open source projects that use the MIT or BSD licenses without any patent license, thus potentially allowing the patent owner to use patents against you offensively or defensively. (As far as I know, it is still unresolved whether the MIT or BSD licenses include an implied grant of patent rights, but at the very least there would be serious legal uncertainty.) For one example, see the license on this Google project: https://github.com/google/trace-viewer/blob/master/LICENSE https://github.com/google/trace-viewer/blob/master/LICENSE. No mention of patent rights, and unless you could successfully argue that there was an implied license, Google could sue a user for patent infringement for using this software (not that Google has ever used patents offensively, to my knowledge). So it confused me to see a Google employee complaining in the other thread that they weren't allowed to use Facebook open source software due to the limited patent grant. I'd be really interested to know more about this policy.
oe 12y ago
Waiting for some Lawyer to explain why they think this is or isn't great. But mostly out of interest. The old patent grant never prevented me from using their projects.
serve_yay 12y ago
I wonder what will be the next scapegoat non-technical reason not to use it :)
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- jakejake 12y ago
  This may not have been an important issue for you, but many of us actually have to pay attention to licenses. There are components out there that I would very much like to use, but can't for licensing reasons. Having Facebook respond and make changes is quite welcome.
  - serve_yay 12y ago
    So, this was really all that was keeping you from using React, then? That's great to hear.
    - jakejake 12y ago
      You presume that I haven't used React. I also use and release GPL code, however I can't use that at work either.
marcofiset 12y ago
What does this whole patent thing mean? I'm not well-versed at all about licenses and patents and the technical jargon of the file is mostly non-sense to me. Would someone care to simply explain what this implies?
- pixl8r 12y ago
  basically that even if you sue facebook, the license stands (unlike v1 of the license).
  - fuzzybunny 12y ago
    Try reading it again. The license still stands if facebook sues you first, and you counter-sue. If you initiate, you lose your grant.
- nemothekid 12y ago
  From what I can understand from [1][2][3], is the previous patent clause meant that if you and Facebook got into patent litigation, any open source software you used that was written by Facebook would be revoked (opening you up to a license breach). This was scary because Facebook owns a ton of patents and if Zuckerberg woke up on the wrong side of the bed one morning and decided to sue everyone with their portfolio of patents, it would be impossible to countersue if you used any Facebook code. The other posts go into how companies like Google and Facebook use patents as a way of ensuring mutually assured destruction, and if Google had used Facebook code under the license it would be like Google disarming all their nuclear bombs against facebook. IANAL, but it seems the new license is a bit more GPL-esque in its restrictions by saying if you use this software than you cannot sue Facebook, its subsidiaries, and your parent weapon of choice can't be based off Facebook software (or else you lose the software license). However if Facebook sues you, then you don't lose the license and you are free to counter sue facebook with your nuclear arsenal of patents. The reason I call it GPL-esque is it seems to introduce restrictions on how you can legally use the software once you've incorporated it (like how the GPL prevents you from not redistributed the source code), the Facebook license seems to prevent you from launching patent claims that are built off Facebook software. My guess is that if enough people used this license it would be difficult to litigate anyone else without revoking some of your software licenses. Finally, I never took a law class a day in my life and the closest domain knowledge is an intro to econ class I took in freshman year of college so I could 100% wrong. [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9271246 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9271246 [2]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9111849 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9111849 [3]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9113515 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9113515
scarboy 12y ago
I'm glad that facebook fixed this solely for the fact that facebook open source software discussions will not be dominated by the contents of the PATENTS file.
- sangnoir 12y ago
  Or possibly to increase the uptake of their projects at other large corporates: thereby increasing mindshare/developer goodwill. Don't tell me that Fb doesn't want to put up IBMs logo on the "who uses React" page
  - evincarofautumn 12y ago
    GP seems to mean this: > I’m glad (Facebook fixed this). I’m glad (solely for the fact that […]). You seem to have read this: > I’m glad (Facebook fixed this solely for the fact that […]).
    - sangnoir 12y ago
      Thanks - you're right about how I parsed GP's text! Apologies GP.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
watty 12y ago
Thank god! This means every Facebook (React) thread on HN and Reddit won't be half filled with patent arguments.
- loceng 12y ago
  I'd much rather spend my energy supporting an idea or effort than having to state objections for why it might be bad - as would I hope most who are inventors and wanting to improve the world around them.
themgt 12y ago
I think the key bit is Notwithstanding the foregoing, if Facebook or any of its subsidiaries or corporate affiliates files a lawsuit alleging patent infringement against you in the first instance, and you respond by filing a patent infringement counterclaim in that lawsuit against that party that is unrelated to the Software, the license granted hereunder will not terminate under section (i) of this paragraph due to such counterclaim. In other words, it's an explicitly defensive capability they are reserving - to revoke your patent grant iff you are the one to initiate a patent suit against them. If every open source project included such a statement, it could potentially do a lot to end software patent wars.
- jsprogrammer 12y ago
  Don't sue us, we'll sue you.
- sulam 12y ago
  I don't think I follow the logic. Most of the "bad" patent lawsuits are from companies that don't make any software. Not being able to use React (or even Linux, let's say) would hardly be a problem for them.
  - tomjen3 12y ago
    I am sure that we could find some open source software that they use. Surely they have a website? That almost certainly use Jquery, right?
zaroth 12y ago
To those relieved that Facebook open source discussions will no longer be dominated by PATENTS file discussion, I just would point out, is was exactly the persistent complaints which motivated Facebook to make this change. So I would say thank you to everyone who complained about the language in the original grant. It shows exactly what is possible when a determined group persists in vocalizing their grievances. Today it's Facebook PATENTS, tomorrow maybe it's nation-wide automatic license plate tracking. One thing is for sure, staying silent never changed anything. It's a ridiculous comparison, I know, but never underestimate the ability of a small group of determined rabble-rousers to make a difference. A small incident with some tea in a large body of water comes to mind.
- spcoll 12y ago
  > Today it's Facebook PATENTS, tomorrow maybe it's nation-wide automatic license plate tracking. One thing is for sure, staying silent never changed anything. On political issues, the three-letter-agency-mandated bots/shills in the comments of mainstream news outlets and on mainstream social media sites (twitter/reddit) will always be louder and more numerous than us. It's only on issues that the powerful don't really care about that democratic change is possible. EDIT: To the downvoters: may I know why you are downvoting me? Maybe you believe I'm a tinfoil hatter? Maybe you think governments, who have been controlling media "narratives" for as long as media has been a thing, don't care about social media even though it is dead easy to manipulate? Maybe you don't know that this has been heavily documented for a while, and is really happening on a large scale, all the time?
  - yulaow 12y ago
    Maybe are the governments those who are downvoting you.
    - aptwebapps 12y ago
      Really, I don't know why the GP is getting all bothered, it's just a bunch of bots, obviously.
  - 12y ago
fuzzybunny 12y ago
Can anyone comment on whether corporate M&A departments are concerned with this license? An aquirer would either have to rewrite much of the code of their newly acquired startup, or they would lose the ability to initiate a patent suit. According to [1], Google is not able to use React. How much of a concern is this when considering a new aquisition? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9271246 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9271246
- jamesgpearce 12y ago
  NB that post pre-dates this change.
  - fuzzybunny 12y ago
    The scenario I'm worried about may still be a valid concern under the new license. Here is the scenario: 1. Google decides to buy my company in 2016. 2. They ask me to purge my codebase of React, so I switch to Angular. 3. Some years later, Google decides to sue Facebook over a blimp route optimization algorithm. 4. Facebook responds: "Well Google, one of your subsidiaries used React back in 2015 before you bought them, and now that you're suing us, that grant is no longer valid, so you're now liable for infringements on our React patents." So with that scenario in mind, Google chooses to pass on buying my company, leaving some smaller acquirers, and maybe Facebook as possible buyers. Please tell me this is not how it works. I would love to use React, but I can't bet the farm on this without more assurance.
    - ralmidani 12y ago
      IANAL, but my understanding is the termination is not retroactive. You would only be liable if you continued to use React after your patent grant was terminated.
    - tomjen3 12y ago
      INALIDEPLT: That is not how it works - a termination of the licences means your license is no longer valid, much like you can have any other agreement terminate but that doesn't mean it wasn't valid in the past. It would essentially be the same as if you had a license that was purchased for X years - you can't use it more than X years, but that doesn't mean you can't use it during that period.
danschumann 12y ago
I think this is an upgrade. The patent as worded before made it seem like if Facebook sued you, you couldn't both defend yourself and keep your license. In this version, it seems, that you only lose your license if you are the first actor in a lawsuit. Any legal people to verify what I said?
cmwelsh 12y ago
Can you sue Facebook for patent infringement and still use React.js? What I mean by that is... do you actually need this patent grant to use React.js? Since React.js is BSD licensed, can you distribute a fork of React.js that does not include this file?
- pluma 12y ago
  Without an explicit patents grant, you're not granted any patents and therefore could be sued for patent infringement if the software is covered by any patents owned by Facebook. Also, I think the "license" (in the legal sense) for React consists of both the LICENSE and the PATENTS file, so in order to re-distribute the project you'd still personally need to obey its terms. There's also the problem that the requirements for a "derived work" (which could be distributed with your own license) are more complex than "change a bunch of files", so if you simply slap a new license on someone else's project the new license is not necessarily enforcible and you may be infringing their copyright. Basically, IP law can not easily be gamed (case in point: legally speaking there's nothing wrong or unexpected about patent trolls).
stephengillie 12y ago
Off-topic, running this URL thru Get-Webcontent (aka curl for Powershell) produces an interesting pattern: http://i.imgur.com/2vjxq8G.png http://i.imgur.com/2vjxq8G.png
yizi 12y ago
I don't see how this makes everything okay to use now? To me it basically means, if I sue Facebook for any reason involving patents, I would have to give up using its code. I invent a time machine, Facebook can infringe on my patent and I can't sue unless I stop using their code. Please tell me I am wrong.
- Rapzid 12y ago
  It reads to me like the patent grant license is revoked. So yes, but maybe not? Does facebook even have patents applicable to react?
raquo 12y ago
> A "Patent Assertion" is any lawsuit or other action alleging direct, indirect, or contributory infringement or inducement to infringe any patent, including a cross-claim or counterclaim. Does "action" has any special legal meaning here? It almost seems that you can't write a blog post about facebook infringing on any patents.
- fncypants 12y ago
  Yes it has special meaning that lawyers tend to forget confuses laypeople. A legal action is a term of art that means a legal proceeding such as a lawsuit or a petition at a gov't agency. From Black's Law Dictionary: Lawful pursuit for justice or decision under the law, typically leading to proceeding within the jurisdiction’s court system. An entity accuses another for a unlawful action, to protect an entity’s rights from violation
choppaface 12y ago
The patent language in the previous FB license seemed pretty similar to the patent language in Apache 2.0. Can anybody comment or link to a discussion of why the FB language was undesirable? And why not change Apache 2.0 in the same way? (Confused)

354 points by spicyj 12y ago

Why not just use the ASF 2.0? https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 It comes with a patent grant.

tomjen3 12y ago
Also, as far as I know, not compatible with the GPL.
- pluma 12y ago
  Not compatible with GPLv2, but compatible with GPLv3: https://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html https://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html

chamakits 12y ago

This is what true commitment to open source looks like. Many companies may have remained silent about this and never address it. Their projects where already popular enough that they didn't really need to address the concerns that many had about them. But they did. And I'm sure it wasn't a trivial effort from whoever worked on getting this amended. So I applaud Facebook and the people that worked to address the communities concerns.

DannyBee 12y ago

I'm very glad Facebook was willing to take a step back here, evaluate people's concerns, and update the grant to address them. Most companies, when placed in the same position, would simply double down and tell people to go pound sand. The fact that they didn't, and in fact, actually talked with folks and addressed this head on, speaks volumes about them as a company.

throwaway41597 12y ago
edit: They actually kept a large part of the previous license. The new license will terminate if you initiate: "any Patent Assertion [...] (iii) against any party relating to the Software". So if you sue any React user for infringing any patent, even unrelated to React usage, your license for React will terminate. On the other hand, if Facebook uses your Apache 2.0 software, their license to your patents terminates only if they sue people for using your software. Isn't that asymmetric? /end edit Isn't there a loop-hole though? With the new license, if a FB affiliate sues you, you can only countersue the affiliate. So if FB asks an affiliate to sue you (maybe they sell the affiliate a couple of patents for instance), you can't counterclaim against FB, you can only counterclaim against the affiliate, which may not have a product. Is that correct? Thanks for raising awareness about the previous license. The new one definitely seems better.
- DannyBee 12y ago
  It is asymmetric vs Apache 2.0, but that's like saying GPLv3 is asymmetric vs BSD. Past that, to be honest, there are always "loopholes" in all of these licenses related to transferring patents to entities/etc. Given any open source license, i can come up with a valid legal way for an entity to sue you over patents in it. But at some point, you have to trust that isn't the spirit/goal of the license, because if it is, you are kind f*cked anyway. That point, has, IMHO, been reached here now. Otherwise, it's generally not a sane problem to solve in licenses. It's an insanely complex area due to the ways it can happen. You generally don't want to try to shove all that in one document, it'll be a mess, and you'll never be able to update it for ambiguities discovered or change it with the times as law changes (OSS already has a large enough problem rev'ing licenses) Things like transfer problems are better solved by things like http://www.lotnet.com/ http://www.lotnet.com/, et al, which have specific, well thought out and targeted agreements. Yes, it makes it harder to tell your likelihood to get screwed, in the sense that you have to know not only the actual license, but whether they are a member of LOT or whatever, but i honestly can't see a good way around this.
  - throwaway41597 12y ago

SloopJon 12y ago

Here's a diff from the osquery project mentioned in the post: https://github.com/facebook/osquery/commit/159899a303d0859eb7c3768561544c48ccea42b3 https://github.com/facebook/osquery/commit/159899a303d0859eb...

dynamic 12y ago

[Lawyer, but not a patent lawyer] I was perplexed by the uproar on HN about the original patent language (in the thread announcing the release of React Native [1]). This kind of open-source patent license--which, in effect, allows Facebook to use its patents against users of React defensively but not offensively--is exactly what we need more of in the open source world. Why did people think that their defensive patent license was somehow worse than the industry standard (the MIT or BSD copyright license with no patent license, which made patent rights murky at best)? But this new language eliminates the major limitation on the original language, which was that the license would be terminated if you attempted to invalidate one of Facebook's patents or defensively argued that it was invalid or unenforceable (or even, according to a strict though implausible reading of the language, if you publicly stated that the patent was invalid). Glad to see Facebook paying attention, even if the original complaint was overblown. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9271246 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9271246

superuser2 12y ago
The problem was that under the original license, Facebook could sue you (as an initial aggressor) for an unrelated patent infringement, and if you claimed that the unrelated patent was invalid, you would lose your license/patent grant to i.e React. It did not just discourage you from suing Facebook, it made you defenseless if Facebook sued you. This appears to remove that language and creates the much more desirable balanced situation you are talking about (IANAL).
- dynamic 12y ago
  I agree, and that's what I was saying in the second paragraph (I've edited it a bit to try to make that clearer). This is definitely an improvement from that original language. But I don't see how the original license was somehow worse than the open source projects that use the MIT or BSD licenses without any patent license, thus potentially allowing the patent owner to use patents against you offensively or defensively. (As far as I know, it is still unresolved whether the MIT or BSD licenses include an implied grant of patent rights, but at the very least there would be serious legal uncertainty.) For one example, see the license on this Google project: https://github.com/google/trace-viewer/blob/master/LICENSE https://github.com/google/trace-viewer/blob/master/LICENSE. No mention of patent rights, and unless you could successfully argue that there was an implied license, Google could sue a user for patent infringement for using this software (not that Google has ever used patents offensively, to my knowledge). So it confused me to see a Google employee complaining in the other thread that they weren't allowed to use Facebook open source software due to the limited patent grant. I'd be really interested to know more about this policy.

oe 12y ago

Waiting for some Lawyer to explain why they think this is or isn't great. But mostly out of interest. The old patent grant never prevented me from using their projects.

serve_yay 12y ago

I wonder what will be the next scapegoat non-technical reason not to use it :)

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
jakejake 12y ago
This may not have been an important issue for you, but many of us actually have to pay attention to licenses. There are components out there that I would very much like to use, but can't for licensing reasons. Having Facebook respond and make changes is quite welcome.
- serve_yay 12y ago
  So, this was really all that was keeping you from using React, then? That's great to hear.
  - jakejake 12y ago
    You presume that I haven't used React. I also use and release GPL code, however I can't use that at work either.

marcofiset 12y ago

What does this whole patent thing mean? I'm not well-versed at all about licenses and patents and the technical jargon of the file is mostly non-sense to me. Would someone care to simply explain what this implies?

pixl8r 12y ago
basically that even if you sue facebook, the license stands (unlike v1 of the license).
- fuzzybunny 12y ago
  Try reading it again. The license still stands if facebook sues you first, and you counter-sue. If you initiate, you lose your grant.
nemothekid 12y ago
From what I can understand from [1][2][3], is the previous patent clause meant that if you and Facebook got into patent litigation, any open source software you used that was written by Facebook would be revoked (opening you up to a license breach). This was scary because Facebook owns a ton of patents and if Zuckerberg woke up on the wrong side of the bed one morning and decided to sue everyone with their portfolio of patents, it would be impossible to countersue if you used any Facebook code. The other posts go into how companies like Google and Facebook use patents as a way of ensuring mutually assured destruction, and if Google had used Facebook code under the license it would be like Google disarming all their nuclear bombs against facebook. IANAL, but it seems the new license is a bit more GPL-esque in its restrictions by saying if you use this software than you cannot sue Facebook, its subsidiaries, and your parent weapon of choice can't be based off Facebook software (or else you lose the software license). However if Facebook sues you, then you don't lose the license and you are free to counter sue facebook with your nuclear arsenal of patents. The reason I call it GPL-esque is it seems to introduce restrictions on how you can legally use the software once you've incorporated it (like how the GPL prevents you from not redistributed the source code), the Facebook license seems to prevent you from launching patent claims that are built off Facebook software. My guess is that if enough people used this license it would be difficult to litigate anyone else without revoking some of your software licenses. Finally, I never took a law class a day in my life and the closest domain knowledge is an intro to econ class I took in freshman year of college so I could 100% wrong. [1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9271246 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9271246 [2]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9111849 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9111849 [3]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9113515 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9113515

scarboy 12y ago

I'm glad that facebook fixed this solely for the fact that facebook open source software discussions will not be dominated by the contents of the PATENTS file.

sangnoir 12y ago
Or possibly to increase the uptake of their projects at other large corporates: thereby increasing mindshare/developer goodwill. Don't tell me that Fb doesn't want to put up IBMs logo on the "who uses React" page
- evincarofautumn 12y ago
  GP seems to mean this: > I’m glad (Facebook fixed this). I’m glad (solely for the fact that […]). You seem to have read this: > I’m glad (Facebook fixed this solely for the fact that […]).
  - sangnoir 12y ago
    Thanks - you're right about how I parsed GP's text! Apologies GP.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

watty 12y ago

Thank god! This means every Facebook (React) thread on HN and Reddit won't be half filled with patent arguments.

loceng 12y ago
I'd much rather spend my energy supporting an idea or effort than having to state objections for why it might be bad - as would I hope most who are inventors and wanting to improve the world around them.

themgt 12y ago

I think the key bit is Notwithstanding the foregoing, if Facebook or any of its subsidiaries or corporate affiliates files a lawsuit alleging patent infringement against you in the first instance, and you respond by filing a patent infringement counterclaim in that lawsuit against that party that is unrelated to the Software, the license granted hereunder will not terminate under section (i) of this paragraph due to such counterclaim. In other words, it's an explicitly defensive capability they are reserving - to revoke your patent grant iff you are the one to initiate a patent suit against them. If every open source project included such a statement, it could potentially do a lot to end software patent wars.

jsprogrammer 12y ago
Don't sue us, we'll sue you.
sulam 12y ago
I don't think I follow the logic. Most of the "bad" patent lawsuits are from companies that don't make any software. Not being able to use React (or even Linux, let's say) would hardly be a problem for them.
- tomjen3 12y ago
  I am sure that we could find some open source software that they use. Surely they have a website? That almost certainly use Jquery, right?

zaroth 12y ago

To those relieved that Facebook open source discussions will no longer be dominated by PATENTS file discussion, I just would point out, is was exactly the persistent complaints which motivated Facebook to make this change. So I would say thank you to everyone who complained about the language in the original grant. It shows exactly what is possible when a determined group persists in vocalizing their grievances. Today it's Facebook PATENTS, tomorrow maybe it's nation-wide automatic license plate tracking. One thing is for sure, staying silent never changed anything. It's a ridiculous comparison, I know, but never underestimate the ability of a small group of determined rabble-rousers to make a difference. A small incident with some tea in a large body of water comes to mind.

spcoll 12y ago
> Today it's Facebook PATENTS, tomorrow maybe it's nation-wide automatic license plate tracking. One thing is for sure, staying silent never changed anything. On political issues, the three-letter-agency-mandated bots/shills in the comments of mainstream news outlets and on mainstream social media sites (twitter/reddit) will always be louder and more numerous than us. It's only on issues that the powerful don't really care about that democratic change is possible. EDIT: To the downvoters: may I know why you are downvoting me? Maybe you believe I'm a tinfoil hatter? Maybe you think governments, who have been controlling media "narratives" for as long as media has been a thing, don't care about social media even though it is dead easy to manipulate? Maybe you don't know that this has been heavily documented for a while, and is really happening on a large scale, all the time?
- yulaow 12y ago
  Maybe are the governments those who are downvoting you.
  - aptwebapps 12y ago
    Really, I don't know why the GP is getting all bothered, it's just a bunch of bots, obviously.
- 12y ago

fuzzybunny 12y ago

Can anyone comment on whether corporate M&A departments are concerned with this license? An aquirer would either have to rewrite much of the code of their newly acquired startup, or they would lose the ability to initiate a patent suit. According to [1], Google is not able to use React. How much of a concern is this when considering a new aquisition? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9271246 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9271246

jamesgpearce 12y ago
NB that post pre-dates this change.
- fuzzybunny 12y ago
  The scenario I'm worried about may still be a valid concern under the new license. Here is the scenario: 1. Google decides to buy my company in 2016. 2. They ask me to purge my codebase of React, so I switch to Angular. 3. Some years later, Google decides to sue Facebook over a blimp route optimization algorithm. 4. Facebook responds: "Well Google, one of your subsidiaries used React back in 2015 before you bought them, and now that you're suing us, that grant is no longer valid, so you're now liable for infringements on our React patents." So with that scenario in mind, Google chooses to pass on buying my company, leaving some smaller acquirers, and maybe Facebook as possible buyers. Please tell me this is not how it works. I would love to use React, but I can't bet the farm on this without more assurance.
  - ralmidani 12y ago
    IANAL, but my understanding is the termination is not retroactive. You would only be liable if you continued to use React after your patent grant was terminated.
  - tomjen3 12y ago
    INALIDEPLT: That is not how it works - a termination of the licences means your license is no longer valid, much like you can have any other agreement terminate but that doesn't mean it wasn't valid in the past. It would essentially be the same as if you had a license that was purchased for X years - you can't use it more than X years, but that doesn't mean you can't use it during that period.

danschumann 12y ago

I think this is an upgrade. The patent as worded before made it seem like if Facebook sued you, you couldn't both defend yourself and keep your license. In this version, it seems, that you only lose your license if you are the first actor in a lawsuit. Any legal people to verify what I said?

cmwelsh 12y ago

Can you sue Facebook for patent infringement and still use React.js? What I mean by that is... do you actually need this patent grant to use React.js? Since React.js is BSD licensed, can you distribute a fork of React.js that does not include this file?

pluma 12y ago
Without an explicit patents grant, you're not granted any patents and therefore could be sued for patent infringement if the software is covered by any patents owned by Facebook. Also, I think the "license" (in the legal sense) for React consists of both the LICENSE and the PATENTS file, so in order to re-distribute the project you'd still personally need to obey its terms. There's also the problem that the requirements for a "derived work" (which could be distributed with your own license) are more complex than "change a bunch of files", so if you simply slap a new license on someone else's project the new license is not necessarily enforcible and you may be infringing their copyright. Basically, IP law can not easily be gamed (case in point: legally speaking there's nothing wrong or unexpected about patent trolls).

stephengillie 12y ago

Off-topic, running this URL thru Get-Webcontent (aka curl for Powershell) produces an interesting pattern: http://i.imgur.com/2vjxq8G.png http://i.imgur.com/2vjxq8G.png

yizi 12y ago

I don't see how this makes everything okay to use now? To me it basically means, if I sue Facebook for any reason involving patents, I would have to give up using its code. I invent a time machine, Facebook can infringe on my patent and I can't sue unless I stop using their code. Please tell me I am wrong.

Rapzid 12y ago
It reads to me like the patent grant license is revoked. So yes, but maybe not? Does facebook even have patents applicable to react?

raquo 12y ago

> A "Patent Assertion" is any lawsuit or other action alleging direct, indirect, or contributory infringement or inducement to infringe any patent, including a cross-claim or counterclaim. Does "action" has any special legal meaning here? It almost seems that you can't write a blog post about facebook infringing on any patents.

fncypants 12y ago
Yes it has special meaning that lawyers tend to forget confuses laypeople. A legal action is a term of art that means a legal proceeding such as a lawsuit or a petition at a gov't agency. From Black's Law Dictionary: Lawful pursuit for justice or decision under the law, typically leading to proceeding within the jurisdiction’s court system. An entity accuses another for a unlawful action, to protect an entity’s rights from violation

choppaface 12y ago

The patent language in the previous FB license seemed pretty similar to the patent language in Apache 2.0. Can anybody comment or link to a discussion of why the FB language was undesirable? And why not change Apache 2.0 in the same way? (Confused)