
Your license to use React.js can be revoked if you compete with Facebook - velmu
http://react-etc.net/entry/your-license-to-use-react-js-can-be-revoked-if-you-compete-with-facebook
======
spicyj
I work on React.

I'm not a lawyer so I won't try to paraphrase the license -- I actually think
the wording is pretty simple already -- but to be clear, only the patent grant
might terminate if you were to sue Facebook; the BSD license that the code is
provided under remains valid regardless.

The author's claim that Google and Microsoft employees are unable to use React
is false. I know there are teams at both companies using React and React
Native. (It is true that Google was not happy with an older version of the
patent grant, but we updated it in response to their feedback.)

~~~
petilon
The problem with React is its patent rider. React.js comes with a BSD license,
but has a patent rider that gives you a license to React's patents. This
sounds like a good thing, right? But this rider has a "strong retaliation
clause" which says that if you make any sort of patent claim against Facebook
this patent license automatically terminates. Which means Facebook can now sue
you for patent infringement for using React. You may think this is no worse
than not having a patent rider at all. But that's not the case. If there is no
patent rider then there is an implicit grant which cannot be revoked.

If you work for a software company and your company has patents then keep in
mind that by using React you are giving Facebook a free license to your entire
patent portfolio.

More info on weak vs strong retaliation clauses:
[http://www.rosenlaw.com/lj9.htm](http://www.rosenlaw.com/lj9.htm)

~~~
wtracy
> If there is no patent rider then there is an implicit grant which cannot be
> revoked.

That contradicts everything I've ever heard on the subject. Can you cite any
legal precedent?

~~~
Lazare
The text of the BSD license says "Redistribution and use in source and binary
forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided...".

Now, there's a theory that looks like this: The BSD license gives you a
license to _use_ a project. If I release some code under a BSD license, but I
also patent it, and you download it, start to use it, and I sue you, then you
couldn't _really_ use it, could you?

So some people have argued that the "use" part of the BSD license includes
_all_ the rights needed to actually use the project, including the right to
use any patents the author may have. There are some counterarguments too of
course.

However, no court has ever considered the question, and no rulings have been
made in either direction. Some day, a court may decide that the BSD license
includes an implcit grant...or not. We'll have to wait and see.

Now, a followup question is: What happens if a court decides the BSD license
includes an implicit grant, but an explicit grant is also included? Some
people think that the explicit grant might _replace_ the implicit grant;
others think that it might _add_ to the implicit grant. And if the explicit
grant is seen as replacing the implicit grant, and the explicit grant
terminates in conditions where the BSD license does not, then the explicit
grant actually weakens the BSD license. Alternatively, if the grant is
additive (or no implicit grant exists), then the explicit grant does not
weaken the BSD license.

Petilon's position is right if: 1) A court rules that the BSD license contains
an implicit grant and 2) Further rules that the explicit grant included in the
React project replaces and extinguishes the implicit grant included in BSD
license. So far neither step has occurred, but they _might_. In theory. :)

------
calinet6
The spirit of the actual license appears to be toward specifically preventing
patent litigation against Facebook _and contributors and related entities to
React itself_. Assigning it to "competing with Facebook" in general seems a
little broad.

IANAL, but this could be seen as a needed protection and Facebook playing it
safe in the interest of both itself and its open source contributors, kind of
saying "if you contribute to, use, or are involved in React, everyone has to
play nice and mutually agree not to sue each other over software patents. If
you do, you don't get to benefit."

Then again, you could take it the other way, and assume it could be used on
the offensive. But I think there would be enough pressures against that type
of use. Still, sure, consult a lawyer.

Edit: the last part seems to grant some pretty wide freedoms, protecting your
right to use React even if Facebook sues you over a patent unrelated to React,
so with that in there, I think it's making it abundantly clear that this
clause is about protecting React from patent litigation. Seems solid.

------
foota
This seems to be a complete misreading of the clause, which focuses on patent
claims.

------
peterbonney
IANAL but the plain-English reading of the license is extremely
straightforward: the license is void if the licensee engages in patent
litigation against Facebook or React contributors.

That's narrow, clear and (IMO) sensible. This entire article is just pure
misinformation.

------
rosser
This is just patent-suit MAD ("If you sue, or counter-sue, us for patent-y
stuff, your license to use the patents underlying React is forfeit."), not
"You can't use React to do Facebook-y things." There is absolutely nothing in
the grant of patent rights that supports the second notion.

------
jake-low
Here's some more discussion from a previous HN submission:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8985541](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8985541)

------
bsbechtel
This seems like the open source licensing equivalent of mutually assured
destruction with nuclear weapons. If Facebook were to aggressively pull the
rug out from a competitor because of React licensing, I think the effects for
the industry as a whole would be far worse than the threat some startup posed
to them.

------
tudorw
I was never quite persuaded to tip in so how do devs who did feel about this
approach, does not apply no bother? Does apply but won't compete? Does apply
and uncertain of future?

"This is the reason why both Google and Microsoft employees are not allowed to
use React.js in their work. " is that true ?

~~~
spicyj
Google employees formerly were not allowed to use React but now are after the
patent grant was changed (in response to their feedback). I know of several
teams at Microsoft using React Native, so I assume there's no concern there
either.

~~~
tudorw
okay, that's reassuring, thanks.

~~~
jacob_henry
Not so quickly. There is no verifiable source for to this. Are there any
google team publicly announcing react in their tech stack ?

~~~
spicyj
I guess I'm not verifiable enough? What about Paul Irish?

[https://twitter.com/paul_irish/status/754864479460929536](https://twitter.com/paul_irish/status/754864479460929536)

------
rsyring
That title and article is very misleading. A) The React license is a 3 clause
BSD license.
[https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/LICENSE](https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/LICENSE)
It has absolutely no custom restrictions in it. In addition to the license for
using react, they B) grant an additional patent related license
([https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/PATENTS](https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/PATENTS))
such that if you use React and React "infringes" on a Facebook patent,
Facebook is additionally licensing the patent to you. In this way, not only
are you licensed to use the software (React), but you are licensed to use any
Facebook patents that React might infringe/use. However, if you decide to sue
Facebook for patent infringement (of any kind), they are going to revoke your
license to their PATENTS. This only matters if the software (React) actually
infringes the PATENTS. Either way, you still technically have a license (3
clause BSD) to React...but, you could be violating a Facebook patent by using
it.

It's important to keep in mind that there are two different types of
Intellectual Property in view here. Software licenses and patent licenses.
Theoretically, you could use some software Y under the BSD license and have
some third party X sue you because Y violates a patent (even though you didn't
write Y and are only using it). Facebook is being generous IMO by saying both
A) you can use our software and B) if we have patents that the software
benefits from we also license those to you provided C) you do not sue us for
patent violations, in which case we revoke B (but not A).

So, going back to the article, the license to use React would not be revoked
and it has nothing to do with competing with React. It is possible that if you
sued Facebook for patent infringement AND Facebook claimed that React
benefited from it's patents, that Facebook could now sue you for patent
infringement b/c you use React.

But, if you sue any big company for patent infringement, they are also going
to look at their portfolio of patents to see what you might be infringing and
will counter-sue. So, in that case, I don't feel like Facebook is really being
contrary here. They are basically saying, "As long as you don't sue us for
patent infringement, we promise not to sue you for any patent infringement
related to our open source software (including React). By doing this, we are
hoping you will take advantage of the software we have put out there in the
OSS world and alleviate any patent fears you might have. However, if you
choose to sue us for patent infringement, we revoke this promise, and are
going to treat you just like any other Joe Schmo."

IMO, Facebook is going out of their way to make it possible for others to
benefit from their OSS software by granting not only a generous software
license but a related patent license as well. For the article to misconstrue
this as a license revocation if you decide to "compete" with them is pretty
disingenuous.

~~~
NobleSir
>So, in that case, I don't feel like Facebook is really being contrary here.
They are basically saying, "As long as you don't sue us for patent
infringement, we promise not to sue you for any patent infringement related to
our open source software (including React).

So basically if you have this awesome, let's say, middle out compression
algorithm patent, and have an interface in react, then they can use your
middle out without being sued? (Just trying to clarify what you are saying
here..)

~~~
Lazare
If you patent a compression algorithm, and Facebook infringes, and you are
also using React, and you sue Facebook over your compression algorithm patent
then:

Your license to any patents which Faceboook may or may not have that cover
elements of React will terminate. At that point, Facebook may choose to
initiate a lawsuit against you over your infringement of whatever React
patents (if any) they have.

So if you have (or are planning on obtaining) software patents, the React
patent grant may not be very valuable. (Then again, Facebook may not have any
patents actually covered by the grant, in which case it's not valuable to
anyone.)

~~~
NobleSir
So, basically if you plan to compete with facebook territory as a small
startup, then it seems to follow that you either

(1) Have patents / use a react alternative, such as vue (note this is annoying
since there is no cross-platform native app version of vue ) (2) Don't have
patents / protect your intellectual property in other ways (maybe by
publishing a public whitepaper or something) / use React / Bust your ass since
facebook can likely implement better and faster than any small team.

------
bunchesofdonald
We were beginning to use React for a few things at my company, but we had our
legal counsel review the license and they essentially said to use something
else if we could. They weren't really worried about it, but enough so to
advise avoiding it.

------
cyphar
Sigh. Isn't this why Apache 2 and GPLv3 have patent provisions, so we don't
have to reinvent free software licenses for projects. Even if it isn't a big
deal, I wouldn't trust a patent license that isn't FSF approved.

------
jacob_henry
Thanks for this discussion. Why invest 100's of hour on a framework which
might sue me?. Gonna use angular for now and never look back facebook's libs
unless i have no option.

------
ape4
Perhaps they should put out a non-legalease version of the license.

------
maxsavin
It sure would be nice to get a real lawyers take on this.

------
nemothekid
I remember there was a ton of hoopla about this when React was originally
released - but I thought it was resolved? Am I remembering that right?

------
chrisabrams
If I was going to compete with Facebook I wouldn't use React anyway.

------
meira
This is really bad, but I'm going to use it to compete with Facebook. I hope
they sue me, it would be great PR in Brazil.

~~~
jacob_henry
Nice PR try for reactjs.

------
ilostmykeys
B.S.

