8 ms·

One thing that I think the HN crowd will appreciate: * Patent Grant: Many of you had concerns and questions around the PATENTS file. We pushed a new version of

by morley 12y ago

One thing that I think the HN crowd will appreciate: * Patent Grant: Many of you had concerns and questions around the PATENTS file. We pushed a new version of the grant[1]. The updated PATENTS file is https://github.com/facebook/osquery/blob/master/PATENTS https://github.com/facebook/osquery/blob/master/PATENTS. I still think it's ridiculous that people thought the previous PATENTS file was a Trojan horse with nefarious intent, but it's nice to see them making their intention unambiguous. [1] https://code.facebook.com/posts/1639473982937255/updating-our-open-source-patent-grant/ https://code.facebook.com/posts/1639473982937255/updating-ou...

serve_yay 12y ago
I agree it was ridiculous, I surmise that there's nobody now using it who was refraining from using it due to the contents of the PATENTS file.
- ralmidani 12y ago
  I haven't used React (or related projects) because I prefer Ember, but with the new, non-offensive patent grant I will definitely keep them in mind.
dmdeller 12y ago
It doesn't matter what people thought. The complaints were coming from people at big companies with legal departments. The lawyers' job is to make sure there are no legal vulnerabilities, the same way it's your job to make sure your code doesn't contain any vulnerabilities. Intent is irrelevant.
- peterjmag 12y ago
  Exactly. Looks like Google was among the companies with legal complaints: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9271331 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9271331. I wonder if the new version of the grant was enough to get them to reconsider? It'd be really interesting to see more of Google in the React community.
ptx 12y ago
I don't think ambiguity was the problem with the old version, but this was: "The license granted hereunder will terminate ... for anyone that makes any claim ... that any right in any patent claim of Facebook is invalid or unenforceable." That's pretty clear and unambiguous. And many people find it clearly unacceptable. The new version seems... certainly a lot more complicated. It looks to me like it merely prevents you from accusing Facebook of infringing your patents, but no longer prevents you from trying to invalidate their patents if they attack you. But for all I know it could be saying exactly the same thing as the old one in a more obfuscated way.

by morley 12y ago

serve_yay 12y ago

I agree it was ridiculous, I surmise that there's nobody now using it who was refraining from using it due to the contents of the PATENTS file.

ralmidani 12y ago
I haven't used React (or related projects) because I prefer Ember, but with the new, non-offensive patent grant I will definitely keep them in mind.

dmdeller 12y ago

It doesn't matter what people thought. The complaints were coming from people at big companies with legal departments. The lawyers' job is to make sure there are no legal vulnerabilities, the same way it's your job to make sure your code doesn't contain any vulnerabilities. Intent is irrelevant.

peterjmag 12y ago
Exactly. Looks like Google was among the companies with legal complaints: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9271331 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9271331. I wonder if the new version of the grant was enough to get them to reconsider? It'd be really interesting to see more of Google in the React community.

ptx 12y ago

I don't think ambiguity was the problem with the old version, but this was: "The license granted hereunder will terminate ... for anyone that makes any claim ... that any right in any patent claim of Facebook is invalid or unenforceable." That's pretty clear and unambiguous. And many people find it clearly unacceptable. The new version seems... certainly a lot more complicated. It looks to me like it merely prevents you from accusing Facebook of infringing your patents, but no longer prevents you from trying to invalidate their patents if they attack you. But for all I know it could be saying exactly the same thing as the old one in a more obfuscated way.