And yea, hardly FB specific. Seems all the big ones have these portfolios...
-
-
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I haven’t worked with the yarn team and don’t know the legal situation on how they chose licensing?
-
Some public facts: - Yarn was created while its main contributors were at FB - it's not under facebook/ on GH - it doesn't have PATENTS
-
I know these I’m saying that I’m unaware of why it was treated differently than other projects where main contribs worked for FB @ the start
-
It seems reasonable to assume that Facebook legal doesn't have a completely uniform policy about this.
-
And that, therefore, applying pressure to attempt to avoid PATENTS in the future (and remove existing ones) could work.
-
Or that FB legal has made a determination some packages must have the clause others should not, based on a reasoning that is not shared.
-
That could be possible. Alternatively, it could also be possible that team member preference and pressure plays a role.
-
I think I remember
@sebmck tweeting that he advocated strongly to get yarn published without patents, but memory may be failing me.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
