undefined | Better HN

0 pointspluma9y ago0 comments

You mean unlike every company that is behind any other project you are relying on that doesn't come with an explicit patent grant?

In other words you have no MIT or BSD licensed dependencies, or in fact no open source dependencies that don't either come with an explicit non-revocable patent grant and aren't licensed under Apache 2.0, GPLv3 or MPL 2.0 (all of which by the way still terminate the patent grant if you sue over infringement of patents within the licensed code itself).

Lucky you?

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

qwertyuiop9249y ago· 2 in thread

True, but it give Facebook more legal leverage over you, arguably, and Facebook is more likely to abuse that power than a loose collection of open-source programmers, or a smaller, less wealthy company that doesn't have its tendrils everywhere.

plumaOP9y ago

Barely anyone complaining about the patent grant seems to understand this point, so I'll reiterate:

The MIT license, the BSD licenses, and so on, don't contain a patent grant. Only the Apache 2.0, GPLv3 and MPL 2 licenses do.

If you use an open source project which doesn't come with a patent grant, you can be sued for patent infringement over that project.

Facebook's patent grant prohibits Facebook from suing you over patent infringement for using React, except if you sue them over patents first.

So nothing in your stance is specific to Facebook. If you use AngularJS, Google can sue you over any patents used in AngularJS.

Facebook's patent grant acts as a kind of "no first strike" policy they have to obey for React-related patents: they can't sue you over React-related patents unless you sue them first.

Yes, Facebook can still sue you over other patents. Everybody can do this, even if you don't use their software.

Is Facebook's patent grant as permissive as those in the Apache 2.0, MPL 2.0 and GPLv3 licenses? No -- these only allow retaliation if you sue over the projects the licenses cover specifically.

But the patent grant is considerably better than not having a patent grant. If React is covered by patents (nothing in the grant requires Facebook to actually own any relevant patents), it's extremely likely similar libraries are just as likely to be covered by them (without a patent grant from Facebook) and open you up for liability.

Patents are not specific to software. If something React does is covered by a patent and another project also does it, that's still covered by the patent even if the code isn't from React, even if the author wasn't even aware of React doing it and never heard of the patent.

So, yes, if you exclusively use GPLv3/Apache 2.0/MPL 2 licensed projects, you're safe -- except for all the other patents you might be infringing on that aren't owned by the maintainers (and that the maintainers therefore can't give you a patent grant for).

But there is no scenario whatsoever where using React opens you up to more patent woes than using an alternative implementation -- or a comparable project (like AngularJS, Ember, etc) that doesn't come with a patent grant.

If you're concerned about React, be concerned about AngularJS first. Because if you use AngularJS, Google can sue you over patents without having to wait for you to sue them first.

qwertyuiop9249y ago

I see. Thank you for explaining.

I wouldn't have used angular anyways, though...

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse