Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

There is so much FUD around this PATENTS file.

If Facebook had not included this Patent grant and had released React under only the BSD license then any user would be in the exact situation which everyone is complaining so loudly about being in IF they decide to bring a patent action against Facebook. Specifically, you would be open to being sued by Facebook for violating a patent which they own.

What this grant says is for one specific circumstance (you haven't brought a patent suit against them) and for one specific limited set of patents (those related to React), Facebook will not sue you. If you like that protection then don't sue them. If you decide that you do want to bring a patent suit against them then you're right back where you were to begin with. Your one small limited protection is removed and Facebook can once again sue you if you violate one of their patents - just like they could before you started using React in the first place.

This business about it being asymmetrical is IMO a distraction. What would it mean for it to be symmetrical? That it would only trigger if you sue them for a patent violation related to React? What does that mean? You don't hold React patents, Facebook does. How would you sue them for a violation of a React patent? It makes no sense.




To put it concisely, “why is having a patent license until you commence litigation worse than not having one at all?” The answer is subtle.

Many corporate lawyers operate on the assumption that all open source licenses that do not mention patents (BSD, MIT etc) implicitly grant a patent license. Clarifying this ambiguity is seen by them as harmful — that’s why approval of CC0 at OSI was abandoned[1], for example. Including an explicit patent grant removes the possibility this could be argued in court and is seen as an escalation of the patent conflict by Facebook.

Given many voices at Apache are being quietly guided by corporate counsel, this seems the most likely underlying explanation for the antipathy that's been rationalised out into the open.

[1] https://opensource.org/faq#cc-zero


> "Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met"

We know this statement to be a lie. A deliberate falsehood. There are extra conditions by which you may use or distribute this software.

It was never open source.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: