I'm seeing a lot of "but X other company also has patents." Yes, that's the broken system but the unique issue is the unusual license
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @wycats
You acknowledge the system is broken but criticize FB for trying something new? How will it ever get fixed?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mjackson
New != Better. Unilaterally singling out a particular contributor in an OSS IP license is bad, full stop.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Interestingly tho the FB clause only licenses patents from FB, not from other contributors. So it's *more* restrictive on FB.
2 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
Arguably FB license is more pro-other contributor since it grants them more rights than Apache would.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
But, I mean, you're right that Apache 2 is a better license than FB's license.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
In general, I think that specific-contributor clauses in OSS IP licenses are a violation of the spirit of the definition of OSS.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Ya, probably. But that's an easy fix: just don't contribute. You can still use it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
The appropriate license for users incorporates all IP contributed to React in the patent grant and doesn't privilege Facebook.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
Here read it. If you believe the stuff you're saying about Facebook's goals, they should adopt this.pic.twitter.com/Zdt07aqLiG
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.