But it's not Apache! 
-
-
Replying to @mjackson @robpalmer2 and
I think this means we just lost our license to any Facebook React patents.
5 replies 3 retweets 30 likes -
Replying to @xander76 @robpalmer2 and
So you're saying now they *can* sue me for infringing on their patents?!
1 reply 1 retweet 13 likes -
Replying to @mjackson @robpalmer2 and
Yes. MIT has no explicit patent license.
1 reply 1 retweet 18 likes -
Permission is hereby granted to use without restriction.
2 replies 6 retweets 54 likes -
Sasha Aickin Retweeted Ryan Roemer
Right, and some legal scholars say that is an implicit patent license, but AFAICT no court has yet upheld that.https://twitter.com/ryan_roemer/status/911363546927075329 …
Sasha Aickin added,
1 reply 1 retweet 13 likes -
I'd love to be wrong on this count FWIW.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
I think it's funny to call an unrestricted right to use an implicit license. If you buy off the shelf software w/ that, what would it mean?
2 replies 1 retweet 0 likes -
I mean, this is the problem with reading law. It doesn't always mean what it means! It means what lawyers and judges and tradition says.
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Sure, I'd love to see precedent for an unrestricted license to use construed as being restricted to only part of the rights needed to use.
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes
People treat MIT as being a license about the Copyright IP but it really isn't. It's a license to use / trade.
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.