I literally don't understand how this is a better situation. Whether MIT implies a patent grant has never been tested in court, afaik.
-
-
-
Some people believe that, most didn't. If you're worried about being sued by Facebook for React patent infringement, you're so fucked anyway
-
This just seems like a step down disguised as a step up.
-
The previous license overtly and explicitly recruited you into a patent war you didn't want any part of. The new license is the status quo.
-
No. The previous license gave you the right to use plus granted the patents under certain conditions. This one gives you the right to use…
-
… plus a never tried in court possible implicit patent grant. Apache 2.0 would have been a lot clearer.
-
I certainly would have preferred Apache 2. I'm very happy to be freed from a possible entanglement in a future patent lawsuit involving FB
-
I don't see how you're freed from that. This is

strategy. Those patents, if they exist, still do. - 14 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Is this for real?
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The arguments that MIT provided *less* protection than what Facebook put out - is that not so?
-
It's complicated but that argument was overstated. Maybe they're hoping people will beg for the grant back?
-
Argument was made by outsiders, before the re-licensing. I'm just curious and don't give af either way :)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
yes, Yes, Yes!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
As actual user, license change is only a net positive bc it puts an end on the FUD that was rapidly killing the community.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
which one did they use before?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.
