What license does Google and MS attach to their frameworks, to protect us from *their* patent arsenals?
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 -
-
-
You're arguing "would probably win" better than "guaranteed to not be sued" - this madness. System is broken, but FB slightly less bad here
-
Less bad than Apache? MIT?
-
MIT sorry. You said you'd "probably win" if sued under MIT. Hardly better than the guarantee I understand FB's clause to grant us.
-
The difference is that Facebook is listing conditions in which its license won't apply and they single out Facebook.
-
Again, the thought experiment of how people would reply if asked to switch to Apache is relevant.
-
With Polymer, it's an oversight. They don't intent to reserve any rights to revoke patents. With React, it's a real dispute over policy.
-
I hope Polymer, ng, etc all end up as Apache so FB would be pressured to follow.
-
I'm not convinced any amount of pressure will matter here but I'm happy to lead the way (relicensing is hard sadly)
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.