The thing is, this patent grant wording seems to say that if you are using React, and Facebook infringes on your patents (software or otherwise), and you defend your patents by suing Facebook, you lose the right to use React. So I think it's good to be aware of that.
Which is effectively the same, since if you're now violating an additional patent by continuing to use React, you just gave Facebook additional munition to potentially use against you.
Right now, none, but I was talking about the potential of the thing, Facebook might apply for a React-related patent in the future and if you have an entirely React-based project, that say your company depends on, it's going to be a problem.
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
Yeah, I'd prefer Facebook to declare to not participating in the software patent fiasco at all and to lobby for it not being allowed, but at present, my thinking is that it just seems like having the ability to EXPLICITLY revoke you a patent grant is actually worse than having an implicit one, since then it will probably would be harder to argue for Facebook that they have the ability to explicitly revoke something that is part of the license as a whole, but I accept that I might be wrong on this as IANAL.
They always have that power tho - technically an implicit grant in a license is very very weak. It's already had case-law that shows that it only applies in very very specific situations.
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.
It absolutely does not say that. If there are patented works in React (and even FB has said they don’t know if there are) then the React code is still covered by the license.
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.
> It absolutely does not say that. If there are patented works in React (and even FB has said they don’t know if there are) then the React code is still covered by the license.
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.
