React has a revokable patent grant, people freak out about it, FB removes the patent grant, everyone rejoices.
GraphQL doesn't have a patent grant, people freak out about it, FB adds a revokable patent grant, everyone rejoices.
What am I missing?
Additionally, React is software while GraphQL is a specification. Different types of works require different types of licenses.
The BSD license says I can use the thing being licensed. With a library like React, it's pretty clear what 'use' means. By 'use', they mean they want to allow me to build software with it, so they're granting me all rights necessary to do that. With a specification, though? What does it mean that it grants me the right to use it? There's lots of things you might do with a specification. Did they intend to allow me to implement my own version? If they didn't, I might not have all the rights I need to do so.
DannyBee, an actual lawyer, talked briefly about the importance that this is a specification when this topic first came up: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15291330
That there is a patent actually associated with GraphQL, I believe.
but as you perhaps allude to... people's use of graphql will be impacted by the patent grant. so back to square one?
The idea wasn't unfounded, it was untested. People had worries because of how it looked like it could be used, and people with legal experience that weighed in seemed to have differing opinions on the possible impact. That was a foundation for concern.
if fb wanted to stop react use, they would simply revoke the copyright grant.
in the end, all that was accomplished is that react users became less safe, not more.
removing the patent grant only means you are less safe in terms of patents (fb can initiate a suit without penalty), and no more safe in terms of react usage (fb can still revoke your copyright grant at their discretion).