License with no patent grant: Facebook can sue you for infringing patents,
even if you are using a clone!
License with patent grant: Facebook cannot sue you for infringing patents,
unless you do it first.
Until such a thing is tested in court (in each country) both ideas have merit.
The patent grant is also worded a bit unclearly - implying that if you sue facebook you will lose the copyright, not only the patent right, to use React.
Even though the lawyers clarified it in FAQ and other places, the wording is still what it is.
It's not unclear at all. Here's the file. Note that it's separate from the LICENSE file that grants a copyright license.
> The license granted hereunder will terminate, automatically and without notice, ...
There is no reasonable logical or legal context in which "hereunder" refers to anything except the PATENTS file itself. What lawyers have had to clarify is what should never have been an issue because it was already clear. They're not the ones muddying the waters. Opponents are. We should be asking who is so determined to put this meme out there, and why.
Also, the copyright license isn't useful unless you have complete knowledge of Facebook's patent portfolio and are certain that without a patent grant (implicit/explicit) you can still use the software at all. This goes for Facebook as well as immutable, graphql etc.
> ... if you (or any of your subsidiaries, corporate affiliates or agents) initiate
directly or indirectly, or take a direct financial interest in, any Patent
This amounts to a sprawling amount of individuals/orgs that can make you rewrite everything.
Why would it be unreasonable to assume that the explicit clause in a contract exists to override the implicit clause? Isn't that kind of the point of explicitly enumerating cases? Where, elsewhere in this thread, do you explain this?
And your aggressive tone is unexpected.
Edit: Also, I didn't say the copyright grant was affected, but if you don't have a grant to use a patent that the software flexes.... ? Being concerned vs. assuming flowers seems safer in untested legal waters.
No. Explicit enumeration is also done to address things that are missing or ambiguous. If the intent is to replace or negate something that would otherwise be true, that's usually explicit too. "Superseding all other agreements, express or implied..." or some such.
> Where, elsewhere in this thread, do you explain this?
Mostly in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15257004 and its descendants. Other examples are not hard to find from my profile (two clicks).
> And your aggressive tone is unexpected.
When I'm faced with passive-aggressive behavior, such as persistently making untrue claims even after they've been challenged or even flat-out refuted, I get a bit active-aggressive.
> Being concerned vs. assuming flowers seems safer in untested legal waters.
Then you should apply that concern to all BSD-licensed software. Ditto for MIT license, and others that come with no explicit patent permission at all. All they have is the implicit permission necessary to support the copyright license (which is otherwise separate). The case for that is strong, but it's completely independent of the explicit license. Why not have both? Why take the risk of relying on one alone?
There's a third camp: people who think this is a false dichotomy that necessarily requires those endorsing it to have an oversimplified understanding of IP law.
1. filing a patent infringement against Facebook (for anything, related or unrelated to React)
2. filing a patent infringement counterclaim against Facebook for patents related to React (after Facebook have first filed a patent infringement claim against you for patents on anything)
3. filing a patent infringement against anyone for patents related to React
> if Facebook infringes on patents you own you can't take action against them if you are using React.
You can take action against them, you just don't have a patent grant once you do.
Which opens you up to being countered-sued right? It seems that this leaves Facebook to freely infringe on any patents of React users without consequence.
Also, patent lawsuits are costly. If you're going to start one against Facebook the cost of switching away from React first would be negligible.
Umm, no. You can still sue them, but the patent grant is nullified, which takes you back to the place where no such patent grant exists.
Hence, you're strictly better off with the grant.