It's more about where the decision power comes from. Can you imagine a Rust RFC that added PATENTS to rust?
-
-
I'd certainly be open to a campaign to encourage more frameworks to do Apache over MIT. But overt unilateral terms are something else.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
What does MIT mean, ie, if Google has patents covered by ng or Polymer, can I be hypothetically sued if I use either?
-
You'd probably argue that the MIT license implied a very liberal permission to use and would probably win.
-
But untested in court so yes let's push more people to use Apache.
-
Here's the difference: virtually nobody with plain MIT licenses is *intending* to reserve the right to sue in some conditions.
-
In contrast, Facebook is explicitly telling you that they *intend* to restrict the right to use the software to certain conditions.
-
So if you ask Polymer to switch to Apache, chances are they'd say yes (subject legal boilerplate work).
-
In contrast asking the same of React is perceived (accurately) as a very controversial attack on their license.
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.