Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

The term "FUD" is typically used to denote "unreasonable" or "unfounded" fear/uncertainty/doubt. I'm not sure that it applies to situations where doubt is NOT unreasonable.



> I'm not sure that it applies to situations where doubt is NOT unreasonable.

It doesn't, but it does apply to this situation because the fear etc. is unreasonable. Utterly. Either you have an explicit patent license or the entire PATENTS file becomes inoperative and you have exactly what you would have had with a plain BSD license. It's simple logic. Authority after authority, including Automattic's own counsel, has tried to explain in detail that patent law is not immune to logic. But still the FUD keeps coming, and it's harmful to open source because this is the exact same "why risk it" FUD that has been used against open source in general for years. It's the old Microsoft line returned from the dead, after Microsoft themselves have abandoned it to become pretty decent OSS citizens.


Except that the implicit licence couldn't be terminated if you sued Facebook: https://i.imgur.com/geUPyXl.png


> the implicit licence couldn't be terminated

"Couldn't?" I think you just said the opposite of what you meant, and ended up being correct. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15257004 where I lay out the actual logic involved.


That's what I meant, although I did have a question mark on that in the image, so I was being confusing.

This is what had me questioning whether an implicit licence could be revoked: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15054849


Implicit patent license, the one assumed when your code is open sourced without an explicit patent agreement. The implicit license has no conditional termination clause where the explicit one does. The fear is not unreasonable.


There is no such thing as an implicit license, though. The absence of a license only indicates the absence of a license, i.e. no license.

There is no precedent for BSD/MIT implying any patent grant.

So in other words it's only the chance of an implicit patent grant, which may or may not actually hold up.

In fact, this entire argument is backwards. React is licensed under the BSD license and comes with an additional patent grant. If the BSD license would imply any patent grant, the additional patent grant would only count on top of that so the FB patent grant would actually be irrelevant. If that's not the case, there is evidently no implicit patent grant in the BSD license. You can't have it both ways.


Nobody knows if there is an implicit patent license or not for MIT / BSD Code. It's never been tested in court.


"never been tested in court" doesn't mean you can't have an opinion on whether it would hold up in court: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15051717

(e.g. many parts of the GPL have never been tested in court.)


The parent appears to be using the term FUD with this in mind, to suggest that the doubt is indeed unreasonable.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: