Hacker News Reader

Comment by spenczar5 | Hacker News Reader

I think you have it backwards. The facebook patent license puts all the power in their hands, and none in yours: they can still sue you for violating their patents, but you can't sue them. It would be a much, much worse patent regime.

View on HN

The entire point of the patent license is that they can't sue you for violating any patents that cover the library you're using. So it's at least a bit over-broad to it puts all the power in their hands.

The problem with the patent clause was that it prevented you from suing Facebook for any patent infringement, even if it's unrelated to React. If you're a React using-company, this more or less meant that Facebook had carte blanche to infringe on any your patents at will in an exchange for a license to use their React patents. That's a quite one-sided deal.

No they can't, actually. The language in BSD+Patents only terminates your license to use the software if you are the aggressor in a patent suit. If you simply counter-sue because FB sued you, you're in the clear.

If BSD+patent was widely adopted it could disarm all sides equally.

Maybe that's so but do you really think you can change the license or all open source projects from companies? That's a fantasy.

No, it only puts power in the hands of the big players. It might mean the big players can't sue each other, but they can absolutely sue the smaller companies. BSD + Patents only "disarms" anyone who's actually using the licensed software, and perhaps more importantly, depending on it to the extent that they can't reasonably move away if they lose the patent grant. Even if Facebook did start using OSS from some small company, they could probably just rewrite the software themselves if they want to sue the company.

Patents offer small companies no protection in a dispute with a large company. The legal fight is too expensive.

Both Facebook and Google's lawyers want to create a world where software patents don't block innovation.

BSD + Patents doesn't look like the way we'll get there. Is there a way we can get there without putting "power in the hands of the big players" in the interim?

No it doesn't; read the license again. It disarms you from being the aggressor; if FB comes after you, you keep your right to counter-sue while also keeping your license to use the software.

Yes it does, Them using patents that you don't grant them and you being unable to sue them for it is definitely putting the power in their hands.

Yes, that's exactly the point. It disarms people from fighting over patent nonsense. If you hate software patents you should love the bad + patents license.

Facebook could never take away your license to the software. BSD license was irrevocable, whether you sued them or not.

It already exists and is called the Apache license. If you want to disarm patent trolls but don't want to compel the preservation of user freedoms on other distributors of your software license it ALv2.

No, it would disarm the group whose software is used by everyone else. If you're a small company, it's not likely that you have written stuff that Facebook uses. So, that world looks like one where all big companies are untouchable, but they can easily pick on small companies. Really not good.

Nope. See other replies. The license termination clause only goes into effect if you as the user of the software are the initial aggressor in a patent suit.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com