
React License – Additional Grant of Patent Rights - bcardarella
https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/PATENTS
======
nkohari
IANAL, but by my reading, the patent grant is intended as additional
protection for both Facebook and the consumers of React. Facebook is free to
register patents that may overlap in some ways with code that they've open-
sourced, and you are free to use their code without fear that you'll infringe
upon a future patent.

The 3-clause BSD license is retained in its original form [1] and makes no
reference to the patent grant. Therefore, I believe you could fork the project
and remove the patent grant in your fork. You would then lose the patent
protection from Facebook, but they also could not revoke your rights to your
fork of React.

That said, if your _use of React_ somehow violates one of Facebook's patents,
you're in trouble. The original version of React would be protected by the
additional patent grant, but your fork wouldn't be.

I don't think Facebook is acting maliciously; I just think they're trying to
provide a means to balance their (perceived) need to protect their patent
portfolio vs. their desire to release OSS. If they start suing people that are
using their open-source projects, it's going to undermine the (rather good)
reputation the company has for releasing quality OSS.

[1]
[https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/LICENSE](https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/LICENSE)

~~~
comex
It's also pretty similar to the Defensive Patent License. With that, to
receive a free patent license, you have to join the 'community' by licensing
_all_ of your patents under the DPL to other community members. If you sue a
member anyway, your license is terminated. The language in the DPL is more
precise in limiting itself to actual lawsuits (rather than just "claims") and
excluding counterclaims, but it's the same general idea.

edit: corrected; DPL is not Twitter's license. Twitter's is the "Innovator's
Patent Agreement", which is even more broad in its definition of "defensive"
lawsuits:

 _(a) against an Entity that has filed, maintained, threatened, or voluntarily
participated in a patent infringement lawsuit against Assignee or any of
Assignee’s users, affiliates, customers, suppliers, or distributors;_

 _(b) against an Entity that has filed, maintained, or voluntarily
participated in a patent infringement lawsuit against another in the past ten
years, so long as the Entity has not instituted the patent infringement
lawsuit defensively in response to a patent litigation threat against the
Entity; or_

 _(c) otherwise to deter a patent litigation threat against Assignee or
Assignee’s users, affiliates, customers, suppliers, or distributors._

~~~
emn13
This is actually a much _less_ broad restriction because it stipulates
"voluntarily participated". The react license terminates even if you're on the
receiving end of a lawsuit - it's not defensive, it's potentially offensive.

------
jasonhansel
IANAL, but this seems to imply that, if you use React, Facebook (and
affiliates) can infringe on any of your patents with impunity -- you can't
even verbally accuse them of infringement.

The same applies to Facebook's other open source projects (e.g. immutable-js),
so one must also avoid any libraries that depend on those projects (even if
it's a dependency of a dependency of a...)

This seems to conflict with the spirit of OSS, since the grant doesn't apply
to modified versions of React (i.e., trying to fork React could result in a
lawsuit). Again, IANAL, so I might be misreading this.

~~~
jasonhansel
Also, as pointed out in previous discussions of this clause, this is
significantly more restrictive than the Apache license.

This would make me quite hesitant about using React for any project of
significant size (especially for a large enterprise). I saw a post earlier
about Netflix using React -- I wonder if they know about this.

~~~
ChrisBland
I think companies like Netflix et al are in a mutually assured destruction
scenario with Facebook and others. They have the lawyers in house that can
defend, counter sue, etc & by the current state of the patent system I'm sure
there is something Netflix could try to sue FB for & I would guess neither one
wants to fire the first shot in the war. The companies where this will be an
issue for is smaller companies that may be in the right but can't afford a
defense. INAL, I'm also a big user of React, while this license does irk me a
bit, in reality if I were to ever go up against FB's legal team, I know I
would most likely lose anyways. Don't mean to be defeatist about it, but its
the state of our current legal system.

------
danschumann
The license granted hereunder will terminate, automatically and without
notice, for anyone that makes any claim (including by filing any lawsuit,
assertion or other action) alleging (b) that any right in any patent claim of
Facebook is invalid or unenforceable.

that means if facebook sues you for any reason, they can also take away react
if you try to fight it!!!!!!! Which raises the question: Can software truly be
open source if there is a company to gain by controlling it?

~~~
jhall1468
That's a retaliation clause. That means if YOU file a lawsuit against Facebook
then you lose the patent grant, but only if the lawsuit you file claims that
you own some right to the software in question.

Basically this avoids Facebook being unable to defend themselves if you claim
you have a patent that covers React.

~~~
chc
How does it exclude assertions made when you're defending yourself against
Facebook? I don't see it.

~~~
jhall1468
"The license granted hereunder will terminate, automatically and without
notice, for anyone that makes any claim"

For anyone who makes any claim. The legal definition of claim is that you must
assert you own all or part of the software. If Facebook makes the claim
against you, the only defense you need is their patent license grant and the
software license.

------
dustingetz
There is actually prior art; React is not the first public use of an immutable
virtual DOM; a basically identical approach was presented at Clojure Conj
November 2012 (React launched publicly in May 2013 iirc, though React was used
on instagram.com in September 2012 [0]):

[https://github.com/drcode/webfui](https://github.com/drcode/webfui)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeI5-D7SQe8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeI5-D7SQe8)

If I found myself in a position where Facebook took away my access to React.js
and to the patented ideas, does this help me at all? E.g. could I use this as
a base and implement the immutable virtual dom myself, or looking into
alternatives like mithril?

[0]
[https://twitter.com/floydophone/status/427160179616927744](https://twitter.com/floydophone/status/427160179616927744)

(Some edits)

~~~
saidajigumi
> E.g. could I use this as a base and implement the immutable virtual dom
> myself, or looking into alternatives like mithril?

Prior art is probably only going to help in the case that you're already
embroiled in a legal battle over infringement. That or if a USPTO patent
review were to occur (e.g. [1]). But it'd be best to not be a potential
infringer at the same time you contest a Facebook patent, unless you want FB's
legal team gunning for you in retaliation.

That said, I think there are going to be a _lot_ of developers who simply
don't know about and/or ignore the existence of this patent and go merrily
about their lives anyway.

[1] [http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/12/19/apple-pinch-to-
zoo...](http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/12/19/apple-pinch-to-zoom-patent-
invalidated-by-uspto)

------
ralmidani
I will never use React for anything but (possibly) toy projects.

You don't need a lawyer to tell you being unable to sue Facebook for patent
infringement even if unrelated to the licensed software, while Facebook is
free to sue you for infringing other patents without you being able to
challenge such patents, is an unfair and dangerous license.

And counting on Facebook's good will is as foolish as betting your livelihood
on a Microsoft "promise" not to sue you.

Edit: fixed typo.

------
ThisIBereave
Previous discussion of this:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8901357](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8901357)

------
state
I understand that these things are written as defensively as possible, but
could someone explain how likely this is to _actually_ be used? It seems like
something that's intended to protect FB, but I can't imagine a situation in
which they would actually use it.

Perhaps someone with more legal experience could point out the precedent?

------
hardwaresofton
Maybe it's time to make a truly F/OSS React clone?

For those who may want other options to React after reading this, mithril is
small & has JS DOM:

[https://lhorie.github.io/mithril/getting-
started.html](https://lhorie.github.io/mithril/getting-started.html)

How it's rendered:

[http://lhorie.github.io/mithril/mithril.render.html](http://lhorie.github.io/mithril/mithril.render.html)

Differences with React:

[http://lhorie.github.io/mithril/comparison.html#react](http://lhorie.github.io/mithril/comparison.html#react)

~~~
TD-Linux
Cloning a project does not absolve you from patent claims, though it does from
copyright.

What is the issue with the React patent grant, exactly? (edit: reread it
again. seems it applies to all Facebook patents. I had thought it was like the
Opus license, I was wrong)

~~~
hardwaresofton
In the flurry of IANALs in the comments, the readings of others seemed to
match what bothered me:

nkohari put it best: _That said, if your use of React somehow violates one of
Facebook 's patents, you're in trouble. The original version of React would be
protected by the additional patent grant, but your fork wouldn't be._

As nkohari goes on to state (which I agree with), they're probably just trying
to protect their patent portfolio and participate in OSS.

I, however, don't want to both even being anywhere close to an idea of
compromising F/OSS, as there are lots and lots of options out there that are
well within and have no additional legalese that could be misconstrued
(whether positively or negatively).

------
kylec
Does the revocation part apply to the entire license (code + patents) or just
the patent clause? If you don't care about FB's patents, can you just treat
React as being BSD licensed?

~~~
chc
I think the implication is that Facebook might hold patents on part of React
and you will lose the right to use work based on those patents (i.e. React
and/or your code based on it) if you try to knock down any of Facebook's
patents.

------
asual
What happens if you stick with 0.11.2 - the last version that was released
under the Apache 2.0 license? This specific license should allow you to make
modifications like bug fixes or some other incremental improvements.

The existence of prior art is also interesting especially in the case with
Immutable.js which is basically a JavaScript implementation of common data
structures and algorithms.

------
emn13
That's not a patent grant by any reasonable interpretation. You're still
liable for any infringement, after all, the patent grant automatically is
revoked if they accuse you of patent infringement and you disagree -
regardless of whether the patent in question originally was granted.

Exactly which scenarios is this supposed to cover?

~~~
teraflop
It doesn't seem quite that bad. If Facebook sues you over something related to
React, you're allowed to argue that the suit is invalid because of the patent
license grant. What you're not allowed to do is argue that the patent itself
is wholly invalid.

Even so, the idea that you could sign away your rights to make a particular
kind of argument in court sure seems like a crazy and nefarious way of hacking
the legal system. But what do I know.

~~~
emn13
If you argue that "any right in any patent claim of Facebook is invalid or
unenforceable" you lose the patent grant. So you can indeed argue the (patent)
suit is invalid or unenforceable, and you'll probably win, but by doing so
you'll lose that right in the future: you'd need to immediately stop using
react.

In effect, the license _is_ revocable by facebook, without cause. In short;
it's not a patent grant; it's merely an agreement not to sue over _past_
infringements.

~~~
jhall1468
That's incorrect. It's only revocable if you make a claim. As the person said,
if the only claim you make is that you are using the patent grant itself, your
rights are not revoked.

It's overly broad, but your interpretation isn't correct.

------
xanderjanz
This seems like a paradox. Facebook grants us unlimited rights to the
software, unless we assert that we have unlimited rights to the software?

------
mosselman
What does the whole thing say? In English?

------
bcardarella
The title was rewritten, specifically the concerning part is the 2nd
paragraph. Apparently Facebook reserves the right to revoke anyone's license
using React if FB feels there is a patent infringement.

Edit: I'm wrong.
[https://twitter.com/SlexAxton/status/562318547674619904](https://twitter.com/SlexAxton/status/562318547674619904)

~~~
peterhunt
That's not what it says.

    
    
      The license granted hereunder will terminate, automatically and without notice,
      for anyone that makes any claim (including by filing any lawsuit, assertion or
      other action) alleging (a) direct, indirect, or contributory infringement or
      inducement to infringe any patent: (i) by Facebook or any of its subsidiaries or
      affiliates, whether or not such claim is related to the Software,
    

So if you're a patent troll, you don't get to use React.

~~~
Cshelton
This is actual fairly common nowadays. And rightfully so, if you sue us for
patent infringement....no you can not use our OPEN SOURCE stuff anymore. Seems
pretty fair to me.

~~~
flurpitude
Seems to me the more problematic part is clause b:

 _The license granted hereunder will terminate, automatically and without
notice, for anyone that makes any claim (including by filing any lawsuit,
assertion or other action) alleging ... (b) that any right in any patent claim
of Facebook is invalid or unenforceable._

Doesn't that mean that if Facebook sues you for patent infringement in
something else you did (possibly unrelated to React) and you disagree, they
can take away your licence to use React? In other words, Facebook could
arbitrarily shut down your use of React by filing a spurious patent lawsuit
against you. And if your use of React was critical to your business and
Facebook didn't like the look of your business, that could be dangerous.

~~~
jasonhansel
In fact, it seems that they don't even need to sue you -- they could just
"assert" that you violated their patents.

