I wish they go one step further and say, if you sue or threaten to sue anyone (not just FB) over patents, then the grant terminates automatically.
Still, folks more knowledgeable than me on this topic say it's not a big deal: https://medium.com/@dwalsh.sdlr/react-facebook-and-the-revok...
So yes, any use of a software patent offensively is malicious.
It's better not to use software to force people to change their behavior. It's open source software. That means something. Or used to, at least. We've come from the ideals of the GPL down to defensive/active countermeasures of corporation vs corporation conflict.
Which is fine, I get it. There's nothing wrong with it. I'm just lamenting that Software Matters Now. At this point it's less about having an open culture of sharing and more "We own this."
GPL forces people to respect the wishes of whatever software they depend on, they're free to not use it.
If you are a criminal and want to use software patents to attack innocents, I couldn't care less if Facebook throws some lawyers to hunt you.
No you don't. You lose the right to use any patents Facebook might (or much more likely, doesn't) have on React.
What patent? Patents are a matter of public record; tell me what patent you think I'd be violating.
1) Anyone could apply for a patent on anything. IBM could apply for a patent on some core tech used in your own 100% home rolled web stack. I mean, I have no reason to think they will, but if we're just pulling stuff out of the air that might happen, that seems just as likely.
2) ...actually, more likely. Because a patent application must be filed within 1 year of public disclosure or its barred, and React has been out for years. So...
> Facebook might apply for a React-related patent in the future
No, that would be illegal.
> No, that would be illegal.
How come? So there couldn't be a new version of React with some patented technology? See i.e. [1].
1 - https://www.google.com/patents/US20170221242?dq=facebook+use...
They can deny you the right to use their patents...if any exist.
Without a patent grant you’re in the same situation.
You’d still be covered by the (less powerful) implicit grant in the license anyhow as the license doesn’t get revoked.
You can’t have it both ways: both with and without the grant can’t be bad.
An explicit grant gives you much more power generally. Their ability to revoke is limited to specific situations and that's a reasonable tradeoff. It's still more rights than you have without the patent grant.
Basically this whole topic is FUD (the Apache situation most people don’t actually under and just repeat incorrect information around).
Let’s say you remove the patents license, as most people here seem to want, what do you have?
The exact same situation as if you sued FB over patents and they revoked it that so many ppl are complaining about.
The license without the grant has an implicit grant anyhow. This is less strong than what they added: an explicit grant.
The hullabaloo over this is just silly.
What I said was, if you sue Facebook for infringing on your patents then, by my reading, you lose the React software license. I didn't say that you lose the license if React contains patented works.
I saw the whole Linux v SCO thing so I hate FUD as much as the next guy, but I am literally going by the words in that document. I'm not adding or embellishing. Maybe my interpretation is wrong--I'm not a lawyer--but this is what I see when I read it.
> Let’s say you remove the patents license ... if you sued FB over patents and they revoked it that so many ppl are complaining about.
As I explained, my reading is that if Facebook removes the patent grant and you were to sue them, they could not revoke the React software license, which is what I believe they can do now.
Again, I know my reading may be wrong. But I am going by the exact wording of the patent grant.
Your reading is wrong: https://medium.com/@dwalsh.sdlr/react-facebook-and-the-revok...
I urge you to reread the Patent Grant: no-where does it even come close to saying that.