You acknowledge the system is broken but criticize FB for trying something new? How will it ever get fixed?
-
-
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 -
s/doesn't privilege/doesn't just restrict/ and I'm on board!
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
And thanks
@wycats for bringing this up & helping me learn. I hadn't heard this objection this way before (which probably was my fault!).1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
The whole discussion has been fairly confusing and the most severe objections are being made by lawyers in private.
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.