@wycats ? 
-
-
-
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 -
Legal scholarship IIRC tends towards an implied patent license (in the absence of explicit terms) in OSS license like MIT, etc.
1 reply 2 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @ryan_roemer @mjackson and
But there's no precedent of a court upholding that, right?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
IIRC, there are actually some law review articles at least on the subject. Meaning that there's a lot better sense of what might happen...
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ryan_roemer @xander76 and
And I haven't checked into this in literally years, but there may well be actual court cases on the subject that apply...
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ryan_roemer @mjackson and
That would be awesome! The shakiness of implicit licenses has been one of my big worries about the OSS world for a quite a while.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @xander76 @ryan_roemer and
I mean I totally buy the argument that legal language can be funny, but MIT takes great pains to be super expansive.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @wycats @ryan_roemer and
True, but it was written before software patentability was recognized, so it wasn't drafted with patents in mind. Apache FTW.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
Yeah, my previous comments on all of this strongly advocated Apache. Still my stance.
-
-
But I think MIT says more than people think.
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
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.

