
Relicensing the GraphQL specification - dwwoelfel
https://medium.com/@leeb/relicensing-the-graphql-specification-e7d07a52301b
======
jonas21
So, wait, let me get this straight:

React has a revokable patent grant, people freak out about it, FB removes the
patent grant, everyone rejoices.

GraphQL _doesn 't_ have a patent grant, people freak out about it, FB adds a
revokable patent grant, everyone rejoices.

What am I missing?

~~~
randallsquared
> What am I missing?

That there is a patent actually associated with GraphQL, I believe.

~~~
abiox
the funny thing is, this means that the patent grant previously shipped with
react had basically zero relevance to using react (even after a patent
dispute).

~~~
seangrogg
Yes, as was pointed out by the many that continued to use React.

------
juancampa
I'm not, by any means, a licensing expert but OWFa (the new spec license) has
the following termination clause:

> All rights, grants, and promises made by me to you under this Agreement are
> terminated if you file, maintain, or voluntarily participate in a lawsuit
> against me or any person or entity asserting that its Permitted Uses
> infringe any Granted Claims you would have had the right to enforce had you
> signed this Agreement, unless that suit was in response to a corresponding
> suit first brought against you

Wasn't this the problem with the previous BSD + patents license? Not
criticizing by any means, I'm genuinely curious.

~~~
slaymaker1907
The "...Granted Claims you would have had the right to enforce..." seems to
limit the claim to stuff related to GraphQL.

~~~
teraflop
The license is certainly unclear from a layman's perspective.

The text specifically defines "Granted Claims" as "those patent claims that I
own or control [...] that are infringed by Permitted Uses." And "I" refers
only to the entity granting the patent rights.

So how does "Granted Claims you would have had the right to enforce" make any
sense? Does it only apply to co-owners of the patent rights, or something like
that?

~~~
abritinthebay
> The license is certainly unclear from a layman's perspective.

If that's your standard then you'll either be using PD or leaving yourself up
to your ears in very very risky code. Most laymen won't understand the full
legal implications of something as simple as the BSD licence.

------
eloff
Great news! This follows on the heels of the relicensing of React, Jest, Flow,
and Immutable.js. All MIT licensed now. Thank you, Facebook for taking the
high road here and putting developers first.

------
connorshea
Awesome news, now we can reconsider using GraphQL at GitLab! :)
[https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-
ce/issues/34754#note_41...](https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-
ce/issues/34754#note_41492393)

Out of curiosity, does anyone know of any other specs licensed under OWFa?

~~~
shaded-enmity
Some parts of the OCI use the patent-only OWFa:
[https://www.opencontainers.org/release-
notices/v1-0-0](https://www.opencontainers.org/release-notices/v1-0-0)

------
mcescalante
For previous context and discussion that led to this decision, this is the
GraphQL issue to look at:
[https://github.com/facebook/graphql/issues/351](https://github.com/facebook/graphql/issues/351)

The original Medium post from an IP attorney is linked in the original issue
comment, but I will link it here too as it was a catalyst:
[https://medium.com/@dwalsh.sdlr/using-graphql-why-
facebook-n...](https://medium.com/@dwalsh.sdlr/using-graphql-why-facebook-now-
owns-you-3182751028c9)

------
ChrisCinelli
In my opinion this is a lot more important than relicensing React. There are a
few libraries that do React's job even better than React. But GraphQL and
Relay are a bigger game changer... a 10x improvement compare to the current
use of REST for server/client communication.

------
raulk
These are all huge wins for Open Source activism! Thanks for listening,
Facebook.

------
thesmallestcat
Are these licensing changes retroactive? If I'm already running Facebook's
GraphQL reference implementation, do I have to upgrade to be free of the
patent restrictions?

~~~
leebyron
Great question. It applies to the variant of the spec as it exists today when
the license was applied. Currently found at
[http://facebook.github.io/graphql/draft/](http://facebook.github.io/graphql/draft/)

GraphQL's reference implementation (GraphQL.js) intends on not just being a
great implementation, but also very closely following the spec, so you're in
good shape.

Also, GraphQL.js has had a BSD3+PATENTS license until today, which meant
you've always had that patent license. Later today I'll be releasing a version
of GraphQL.js that is MIT license instead, understanding that the OWFa1.0
applies to all implementations including the reference implementation.

------
andrewingram
This is a far more important change than the React one, because GraphQL does
actually have patents and didn't have a patent grant.

Glad to see it, and learning about the OWFa license :)

~~~
bpicolo
Won't be surprised if fibers get patented in some sense, but who knows

------
schickling
I couldn't be more excited for the recent license adjustments of Facebook's
open-source projects. Great work!

------
yasserkaddour
I was sure GraphQL issue would have a happy resolution, Relay becoming MIT was
a nice surprise.

------
tomelders
I obviously don't know for certain, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was Matt
Mullenweg who framed the issue in a way that resonated well enough with
Facebook to make them change their approach to licensing so drastically and
swiftly...

> I think Facebook’s clause is actually clearer than many other approaches
> companies could take, and Facebook has been one of the better open source
> contributors out there. But we have a lot of problems to tackle, and
> convincing the world that Facebook’s patent clause is fine isn’t ours to
> take on. It’s their fight.

[https://ma.tt/2017/09/on-react-and-wordpress/](https://ma.tt/2017/09/on-
react-and-wordpress/)

That last part summed it up perfectly for me. Facebook may well have been
right (and I personally believe they were), but it's their responsibility to
prove they're right to the world, not ours.

~~~
abiox
> it's their responsibility to prove they're right to the world, not ours

i agree, to some extent. but it's also irresponsible to say they're wrong
without sound reasoning.

------
soapdog
So react, graphql and flow and some others have been re-licensed. Anyone here
has info about changing licenses for reasonml?

------
aldoushuxley001
Does anyone know if GraphQL can be used for a social network competitor to
facebook? Or is that still risky?

~~~
djmashko2
The current license doesn’t prevent you from doing that in any way.

------
sidcool
This will win hearts and minds for Facebook.

~~~
Slackwise
More like a sigh of relief.

------
johnabela
excellent news!

