> That said, if you're using React, I don't think you should be suing Facebook for using your patents - after all, you're using theirs. If you do want to do that, then by all means, skip React.
So if they infringe on your patents you shouldn't sue them because they let you use some of their code? Note that this covers any patent (design patents too and not just software patents) and for any reason you sue them. That's not how this is supposed to work, and precisely what's wrong with the license. The grant shouldn't be revoked if Facebook is infringing on your works. It encourages you to not litigate against them if they're in the wrong simply because you're using one of their open source components.
The Apache 2 license is much better worded in this area:
> If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.
That Apache 2 approach is entirely fair, the grant gets terimnated if you sue for patent infringement, and only that. If that's all that Facebook wanted to protect against, as the author alledges, they could've used the Apache 2 license just fine. They didn't because they're trying to leverage their patents much further.
> So if they infringe on your patents you shouldn't sue them because they let you use some of their code?
No, if it's really just "some code" to you, then you should simply not use it if you're really afraid that Facebook is infringing on your patents and that you will gain harm from that. However, if:
- you're profiting a lot from either React, or other Facebook patents
- you're not afraid that Facebook is infringing on your patents, or
- Facebook infringing on your patents doesn't really harm you, just like you using Facebook's React patents doesn't really harm Facebook
...then you can just use React. And I believe one of the above holds for almost every React user.
And I'm afraid I don't really care how patents are "supposed" to work - we've known for a long time already they don't work like they're supposed to....
> - Facebook infringing on your patents doesn't really harm you, just like you using Facebook's React patents doesn't really harm Facebook
Eh, what? There's a very big difference between someone infringing on a patent, which does harm no matter if you care to enforce it or not (because it sends a signal to others that it's fine to infringe on your patents, if you don't care about them make them public domain instead), and an open source project including a patent grant so you don't have to worry about any patents that might govern that code. The two situations are not identical and can't just be compared like that.
> And I'm afraid I don't really care how patents are "supposed" to work - we've known for a long time already they don't work like they're supposed to....
Ah yes of course! The system is broken anyways so lets just not give a fuck about it being further abused. Just do as you please. Sound argument.
Software patents are broken, but other patents are still doing some amount of good. Facebook is leveraging software patents to get a potential advantage in all patent cases.
So if they infringe on your patents you shouldn't sue them because they let you use some of their code? Note that this covers any patent (design patents too and not just software patents) and for any reason you sue them. That's not how this is supposed to work, and precisely what's wrong with the license. The grant shouldn't be revoked if Facebook is infringing on your works. It encourages you to not litigate against them if they're in the wrong simply because you're using one of their open source components.
The Apache 2 license is much better worded in this area:
> If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.
That Apache 2 approach is entirely fair, the grant gets terimnated if you sue for patent infringement, and only that. If that's all that Facebook wanted to protect against, as the author alledges, they could've used the Apache 2 license just fine. They didn't because they're trying to leverage their patents much further.