Note: this is just one person’s review.
3 Likes
Definitely - albeit a pretty convincing one. That being said I just noticed about a million comments into the HN thread that FB mentioned they have a new open source license FAQ. I don’t think it directly puts the issue to bed, but at least they’re listening!
Been following this pretty closely, and while I think the FAQ provides some answers, it still fails to address the main critique of the situation, which is that Facebook can leverage their patent/license structure to prevent claims against them by users of React.
I think the fact that there has been only one lawyer so far willing to publicly share a critique of this situation indicates that there may be an issue here. 51k stars on github and one lawyer’s response? I find it hard to believe that the ambiguity isn’t intentional and without a forward-thinking reason.
2 Likes
I thought this was put to bed, but I guess not so here’s the simple answer:
- Facebook does not currently have a patent for react and it is unclear whether react is patentable, I Am Not A Lawyer, but I know that there is not currently a patent.
- BSD License does not make any provisions for or against patents, which means that patent law exists outside of the BSD license, and therefore can interfere with the BSD license anyways.
- Facebook has provided a legal contract that use of React cannot in and of itself create infringement even if Facebook would have the right to claim infringement because of React.
- Facebook reserves the right to remove that protection from any agency (person or corporation) who engages in patent claims against Facebook.
Therefore it 100% doesn’t affect:
- People who don’t have any of their own patents to claim infringement (and won’t have in any reasonable time frame)
- People who are not affected by any standing Facebook patents and can’t reasonably find themselves in a situation dealing with Facebook patents in the foreseeable future.
- People who don’t believe Facebook could get a patent for React (it would be hard).
People need to remember the following really critical points:
- The patents file doesn’t reduce the rights provided for in the BSD license. It has the appearance only of reducing those rights.
- Angular, Vue, Preact, even Blaze have the similar potential to be patented.
- Facebook doesn’t currently hold a patent for React, and it is unclear if they even could.
- If Google were to successfully patent Angular, they could go after anyone using Angular as well.
Just to reiterate: The BSD License does not, by default, protect against patents. The Patents file that facebook has is, if anything, more permissible. It is the fact that Facebook felt it necessary to include that file that is scary and has people up in arms.
Sadly, I know of at least one 10k+ employee multinational which has banned the use of React and like-licensed software company wide due to the same concerns. Just an anecdotal, if worrying, data point.
To put this to bed, here is what lawyers have said in our research:
If you (or you are part of an entity) that decides to sue (or counter-sue, or make patent assertions against) FB you lose the license.
What that means is that by allowing people to use FB libraries, FB is protecting itself against future patent lawsuits when / if FB infringes upon the rights of those using its open-source libraries. In essence disabling your product. This also applies when getting acquired or acquiring a company suing FB! It’s a smart way to reduce its legal liability and dispense with others’ copyright.
In fact, if you read the end of that paragraph, if FB sues you for infringement, and you counter sue, you will still lose the license (unless the patents case is not related to the FB library).
Now if you are building a basic website or a non-innovative product or don’t expect to be in FB’s crosshairs, you are fine. Otherwise, use something else or plan to switch when you grow … which could be very hard once you are sucked into the rest of the framework.
2 Likes
@ramez, what you are describing is just one side of it, and even if it’s accurate, it’s not the complete picture
The reality is this is a highly self serving move by Facebook. We as a community should not be defending their position but pushing them to take an open position. After all, the community is of benefit to Facebook as much as their tools are to the community. The relationship needs to be more balanced.
1 Like
My goal was to tell people in simple terms what the patent license means to them. We already made up our mind not to use React.
Absolutely! And I would even add, the whole reason to release these source code libs is to further their interest and their interest only. In addition to legal protection against their predatory practices, this includes hiring pre-trained candidates, and making it easier to integrate acquisitions (since they are using their technology already).
My honest opinion, given how FB is behaving, “ain’t gonna happen!” … again, why would they seek a balanced view? Small developers are playing into their hands quite nicely.
"The problem with React is its patent rider. React.js comes with a BSD license, but has a patent rider that gives you a license to React’s patents. This sounds like a good thing, right?
But this rider has a “strong retaliation clause” which says that if you make any sort of patent claim against Facebook this patent license automatically terminates. Which means Facebook can now sue you for patent infringement for using React. You may think this is no worse than not having a patent rider at all. But that’s not the case. If there is no patent rider then there is an implicit grant which cannot be revoked.
If you work for a software company and your company has patents then keep in mind that by using React you are giving Facebook a free license to your entire patent portfolio."
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11270213
Just spent all of this time learning React and converting my application to it.
It’s really a shame Facebook, it’s really a shame.
And unfortunately this will likely be the case for their other libraries and frameworks as well, like GraphQL.
Even if Facebook’s patent clause is as nefarious as some people make it out to be, is it really going to affect you? If so, what’s the worst case scenario? I like to ask these questions to people who bring this issue up because I think it helps to reign in the shock and terror that people seem to have.
First, does the patent file affect you? Do you actually have a patent? If not, it doesn’t apply to you. If you do have a patent, what are the odds that facebook is actually going to infringe on that patent? If they actually do infringe on your patent (which is probably not likely) and you sue them then the patent file affects you.
Second, what’s the worst case scenario? If you actually have a patent, and facebook actually infringes on it, and you actually sue them for the infringement, you might lose your license to use React. However, there are principles of fairness and equity in the law that would allow you to stop using React in a reasonable amount of time if you were to lose your license. At this point you will need to start rewriting your frontend in another framework. So, the worst case scenario is that you will have to rewrite your frontend at some future date. If your app is any good then you are going to rewrite it in the future anyways so this isn’t exactly a big deal. Also, keep in mind that lawsuits take YEARS before anything is resolved. The lifespan of a lawsuit is significantly longer than the lifespan of a javascript project. By the time you had a legal spat with facebook over a patent the js community will have already moved on to the next hotness.
Hopefully after this explanation anyone reading this can see that worrying about the patent file is just plain silly.
We’re worried about Facebook’s motivations, not necessarily litigation.
From a business perspective: There are some larger companies that do use some of Facebook’s tools and libraries (Github, Airbnb, Uber, to name a few) and who might be pretty worried about these changes. Smaller companies who have ambitions to grow larger will also have these worries.
From an open source developer’s perspective: You’re right, we’re not large corporations or companies. We likely, as individuals, won’t get into litigation, and there probably won’t be any problems. However, we’re developers in an open source community. And it makes sense for us to at least try to uphold the values that open source was built on.
Again, this is open source, not a game of “gotcha!” or “let’s see who can out legal the other”.
That’s why there’s an uproar. We’re developers trying to uphold the values that open source was built on.
1 Like
There’s a lot possibility. You should analyze case by case. Different companies, different industries, different individuals have different possibilities.
When in doubt, Don’t
- Benjamin Franklin
React is just one of many view engine. Here’s React alternative from @trusktr. Interesting he didn’t include blaze
That’s understandable. My point is only that if someone is considering using React they shouldn’t be worried about the patent file (unless they work for IBM, Google, or some other company with lots of patents). If they are idealists and truly believe that they shouldn’t use React purely because it doesn’t fit their definition of open source then that’s fine. That is a completely different matter than being scared of using React for fear of litigation. The two issues have been conflated and are ruffling a lot of feathers as a result.
What if you wanted to be acquired by IBM or google?
haha there are a million “what ifs.” IMO not using React for fear of the patent file is the same as not driving for fear of getting in a car accident. There’s always a chance that something bad could happen in anything you do but that shouldn’t stop you from doing it. React is an excellent view library with a huge ecosystem. If you like the api and the way it works then use it. If you don’t, use something else.
I assume a small project right? Rewriting large project would cost you huge.
We are just talking the view layer of a frontend so unless an app is gigantic it shouldn’t be that difficult/time consuming to move over to a new framework (I recently ported a large Blaze app to React by myself and it probably only took about two weeks - It would take less time now that I have components I can reuse). Keep in mind that this is the “worst case scenario.” The likelihood of even having an issue with React is slim to none. In addition, with the way frontend frameworks go in and out of style you are likely going to have to rewrite the view layer once every couple of years anyways.
I respectfully disagree. The point of my question was to prove to you a fallacy in your argument. Thinking only technically without a clear business or legal direction is a recipe for disaster. When building a new product or platform, many things have to be considered. Including as many “What ifs” as possible, that’s what smart people do. You are advocating the opposite.
As far as React only being a UI framework, many who use React, also use other FB tools as well that are complementary and force you into deeper integration with FB and its patent riding clauses. And as mentioned above by @vyky, large rewrites are costly and error-prone.
This is like a typical hacker news reply. I say, “I like the color blue,” You say, “Why do you hate red?” I didn’t say anything about red. Do you expect me to write an entire encyclopedia response to any statement or question? What about my argument indicates that you shouldn’t consider other factors when choosing tech? My argument only applies when deciding to choose React and a person is hung up by the patent file. Of course you should evaluate your tech choices. Why state the obvious?
1 Like