Which would conflict with the BSD license they grant if it actually was about that. The broader one wins - which is the BSD one.
This only has bearings on patent-related issues.
Right. So you’re screwed if:
- Facebook infringes on your org’s IP
- can’t take any action against them until a rewrite unless you want an immediate takedown notice on your app
- not to mention, if you sit on your IP (patents in this case, not copyrights) without enforcing, you forfeit the rights
- A company with patents wants to acquire you
- “Hey guys can you hold out for a few months while we re-write a big chunk of our codebase and let our competition get ahead? Pay no mind to that other business that does something similar that you can acquire next week”
- You want to acquire a company with patents
- This list is non-exhaustive
Who can predict the future?
It sounds like you’ve made up your mind on the implications and that you do not want to not use react because of them— so what is there left to discuss?
1 Like
And how likely are those “if’s”?
Also, it’s your own fault if you live in a country which allows software patents.
Some info from our Meteor Facebook group, I’m quoting a user _"It has been an entire year already since they removed the clause and even when it was there no one understood it. _
The clause stated that if YOUR company sues Facebook for patents then you lose access to Facebook react patents.
But it doesn’t matter anymore since they removed it"
Please see my post in one of the above quoted threads (if you care about my patent lawyer opinion).
This is much ado about nothing. And my attorney friends ringing the alarm bells need to show me/all of us the alarming case law or stop squawking.
2 Likes
@larry Thanks so much for bringing this to attention. I think it’s extremely important, moral “detail”.
I never had a FB account, but I’ve been a React developer and bound to FB now, which is ironic against my idea to dissociate myself, and my private/social life from FB by not having an account. Nonetheless now you reminded me of the moral stance I shall take to avoid using a web technology whose creator aims to just dominate the entire market on the web and claim legal rights upon every possible competitor. Zuckerberg just wants to make more money and have more control.
By using React, we are at his service with no choice left, just like with our “social” lives spent on Facebook itself.
Who knows, maybe that’s why they had started with React at first place?
Seriously, it’s as if you didn’t read any opposing opinions on this at all, instead falling straight for the “The sky is falling!” FUD.
It’s morals. Not for everyone.
That doesn’t even make sense.
I mean I fully respect if you don’t care about it, but I do. 
My concern is not about my fears and doubts and all. It’s about facts. I personally do not want to contribute in any way to companies that is SO big and greedy. That’s all.
Then it’s too bad that you’re not basing your concerns on actual facts.
There’s a reason why this thread is more than one post long. If you actually had bothered to read some of the other posts instead of blindly jumping off on the first one then you might have discovered that the actual legal perspective on this is a rather different one.
It’s pretty much always the case when it comes to laymen and thr application of the law - they pretty much always get it wrong.
1 Like
Well I read the posts but I don’t buy the argument you and some others are propagating.
What makes you have false judgments about what people have done or not?
Anyways, thanks for a dialogue.
If you worked long and hard on a piece of tech, gave that tech away to the world, and someone else improved your gift but then told you that you couldn’t use it, that’s ok?
I know this wasn’t directed towards me but…
If that’s not okay then no you did not in fact give it away. Expecting an entitlement in exchange for something you gave to someone would mean that it was not given away. It had a price tag.
I think you kind of completely missed the point. Let’s use a car analogy.
You finally make a breakthrough and invent a flying car. You then share the designs for this flying car with the world, for everyone to use.
Someone else comes in and invents a gizmo which only works with your car, let’s say, an ejector seat in case something happens. This someone else then patents this gizmo and, since the gizmo has your car as an integral part, the car is covered in this person’s patent.
Now you yourself can’t build your own flying car anymore - at least as long as you consider an ejector seat an important feature.
Wacky? Yes. But that’s software patents for you.
Basically, what they’re saying: Don’t build proprietary stuff on top of our stuff. You know, similar to what this whole “Open Source” was built upon.
No, I haven’t missed the point. You must be talking about someone else. The entire reason this thread came into being was due to facebook’s patent clause. Which can be classified as a weak retaliation clause. I think understanding this is the basis of the argument: That Facebook can feel free to infringe upon the IP of organizations that come to rely on React, since if those organizations assert a claim against Facebook, they immediately and automatically lose their license to use React, and are now using React without a license, illegally.
If that patents clause was not there, then sure Facebook can still infringe on an org’s IP (if they have any), but asserting a claim against Facebook would not suddenly transform them into an organization that is using unlicensed software.
I stand by my point that it’s unsubstantiated chicken-little-type FUD.
Completely incorrect.
1 Like
Great. I want to be wrong. Because I’d like to be able to use React if I can.
Make me see the light.