My biggest complaint with PATENTS is that it privileges one company rather than all contributors and users. Not how OSS is supposed to work.
Seriously casting this as a benevolent act by Facebook is silly and I wish you'd stop doing it.
-
-
Lots of people use Apache when this issue comes up. Projects that use MIT w/o patent grant often haven't thought about it.
-
But FB is unique in having given it a great deal of thought and deciding to use a unilateral patent grant that singles out one contributor
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Not benevolent, just less bad compared to what exists with the other big co's; I wish all software patents would die.
-
Being overt with PATENTS is in many ways worse. Unilateral licensing terms in OSS is bad news.
-
For example Android uses Apache. I'd have to do work to compile a list.
-
What about Angular, Polymer, TypeScript?
-
TypeScript is Apache. Polymer and Angular are MIT. None have any unilateral clauses in their licenses.
-
I'd certainly be open to a campaign to encourage more frameworks to do Apache over MIT. But overt unilateral terms are something else.
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.
- somehow you all manage to build a first-rate framework without corporate ownership 
)