React is patented https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/PATENTS which is, IMO, a reason to applaud the rise up of alternatives like this one.
I just hope the author is not infringing React patents in his implementation.
React is patented https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/master/PATENTS which is, IMO, a reason to applaud the rise up of alternatives like this one.
I just hope the author is not infringing React patents in his implementation.
The Facebook retaliation clause differs in two respects:
1. It protects only Facebook, but extends that protection to disputes unrelated to the software. Your React license is terminated if you ever end up in patent litigation with Facebook or a subsidiary, regardless of whether it involves React or not. But it is not terminated if you initiate patent litigation against third-party React users, unlike the GPLv3 termination. So it's not strictly a stronger or weaker retaliation clause in this respect, but I think a "worse" one.
2. Your React license is terminated if you challenge the validity of any Facebook patent, even if no lawsuit is involved (e.g. filing an USPTO challenge), and regardless of whether it involves React. As I read it, this covers even defensive patent challenges, e.g. if Facebook sues you over a patent, and you respond by challenging the patent's validity, then your React license is terminated. This part is particularly nasty imo.
I mean, release something as GPL and add "If you sue me in the future, you license is automatically revoked"
Beyond that, GPL itself does not seem compatible with retaliation clauses except for patents.
Basically if you accept Facebook's license, your right to use Facebook-patented software will terminate, in case you express your view that some other (any) Facebook patent is not valid (say due to prior art).
crncosta indicated that there was an actual patent: "React is patented"
I'm curious to know what patents he is specifically referring to.