Hacker News Reader

Comment by slavik81 | Hacker News Reader

There already exists a widely-used license for actively protecting both users and developers from patents embodied in a work: Apache 2.0.

Facebook made their own license for a reason. Compared to Apache, the Facebook license gives Facebook greater power in the user-developer relationship. They only give users use of React patents, but in return they demand protection against all patents from their users.

I'm not a huge fan of the patent system, but I'm even less a fan of hoisting Facebook into a position of even greater power over smaller competitors.

tl;dr: The clause isn't fair. It grants uneven protection. Their refusal to use a similar, existing, popular license that does grant equal protection is concerning.

View on HN

My understanding is that the MIT license - used by lots of projects, including eg Angular - doesn't afford any patents protection at all. So, would you criticize those using the MIT license more than Facebook?

I'm not sure that gp is criticising people for that.

Comparing with the MIT license apples-to-apples, I agree it's guaranteeing less. But most people just use the MIT license because it's simple, permissive, and very popular in certain communities. With both that and the ASL 2.0 being very popular and certainly known to Facebook's lawyers, they then developed this license. So the intentions mentioned in the parent speak volumes, IMO. I'd prefer not to use the MIT myself for these reasons, but I don't think most people are thinking about this particular aspect this deeply when they just slap a permissive license on their projects.

I feel it's a little like this: https://www.xkcd.com/463/. Yes, the new license is providing explicit guarantees that do not exist in the MIT license. But... I'm not sure I like the thinking behind it when other licenses already address this in a fair way.

I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is different. The MIT license doesn't mention patents and only mentions copyright in relation to preserving the notice about who owns it. When granting permissions it focuses on specifying the expected end result rather than getting caught up in details.

The MIT license says plainly that you have the right to use the software without restriction. To me, a layman, it would seem contradictory and unfair if the author later claimed that they held previously unmentioned patents that restricted your use of the software.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com