Interestingly tho the FB clause only licenses patents from FB, not from other contributors. So it's *more* restrictive on FB.
-
-
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 -
Yes, again, I agree. But up to this point you're the first person who has expressed any concern for the contributors. That's not the issue.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
The issue is that there is a bunch of FUD going around by people who are afraid they can't use React because they can't sue FB if they do.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
It's not FUD if it's true. If e.g. Oculus infringed on your VR work & you wanted to sue, you can't. Totally unrelated to React.
2 replies 2 retweets 6 likes -
Yes, you can! You just forfeit your right to the patent grant! This is the confusion.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
Yehuda Katz 🥨 Retweeted Yehuda Katz 🥨
Focus on the goal of the revocation, not the grant.https://twitter.com/wycats/status/909134245334999040 …
Yehuda Katz 🥨 added,
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.