> You're missing the fact that if you sue Facebook for any patent infringement, even a legitimate one (say, you're the creator of some new hardware), Facebook will revoke your React license.

Incorrect. (This has been clarified many times, including in Facebook's official FAQ about React licensing.)

> Also, Facebook has no vdom patent. It's not like you can be granted a secret, hidden patent (even the word "patent" itself means "open").

I agree. Many people have looked; no one has found one. Hence why I believe there's no risk to using React.

Do you mean this one? https://code.facebook.com/pages/850928938376556

It doesn't address the scenario of Facebook's violating your patents first.

The key phrase I was replying to was "Facebook will revoke your React license."

Facebook cannot revoke your React license in any circumstances, as that link makes clear.

They revoke the React patent grant, which effectively downgrades "the React license" to just a stock BSD 3-clause license. At that point they will likely counter-sue you for patent infringement.

In my mind that situation is effectively identical to losing "the right to use" license on grounds of patent suit (like Apache). Interestingly, in Apache you'd still be sued for patent infringement (not copyright infringement) because "right to use" is provided as a patent license.

> They revoke the React patent grant, which effectively downgrades "the React license" to just a stock BSD 3-clause license. At that point they will likely counter-sue you for patent infringement.

Yes, but for what patent? People have looked; none have been found. :)

Patent applications are secret, not to mention that software patents can be very difficult to interpret and search for. RMS gave a fairly long talk about the various problems with software patents[1], and the difficulty in being able to find all software patents that may be related to a project is one of them.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiKRt3-FbM0

Patent applications are public for a minimal time period, 18 months at the very most. But obviously patents are public. React has been open source for over 2 years now. It's highly-likely, almost certain, that any React-related Facebook patent would now be public.

The second part of my comment is probably more applicable (maybe I should've just excluded the point about private patent applications). Even if a React-related patent was public, it wouldn't be called "Patent on React Framework". It probably wouldn't even use the words JavaScript, HTML, or DOM. You would need to hire a patent lawyer for an extended period of time to have a reasonable amount of certainty that no such patent exists (and even then, it's just an educated guess).

"Facebook, Inc. ("Facebook") hereby grants to each recipient of the Software ("you") a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, irrevocable (subject to the termination provision below) license under any Necessary Claims, to make, have made, use, sell, offer to sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Software...The license granted hereunder will terminate, automatically and without notice..."

The PATENTS file affects more than just React. It's found in their other projects too.

> Facebook will revoke your React license.

you mean their patent grant? How can an open source license like apache, MIT or bsd be "revoked"? Do facebook have a public blacklist of people who aren't allowed to use react?

Apache revokes your rights under the patent section of the license if you sue anyone for patents granted under said license:

> 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.

Note that the "Grant of Copyright License" of Apache doesn't grant you the right to use the work, so revoking the patent license is effectively revoking the whole license (though you can still redistribute the work).

Correct. Once released under an OSS license, that cannot be revoked. They can change/restrict the license on future releases, but you can also choose an older release, which uses the more favorable OSS license.

um... because it's they can? I can make a library with MIT license to everyone else but you.

MIT and BSD licenses merely provide short-cuts to understanding a project's licensing

Not practically, because once you make a library with an mit license available to anyone, they can give to anyone you didn't "want" to give it to, per the mit license.

"everyone else but you" would no longer be an OSS license.

The BSD license doesn't allow future revocation in itself. They can make a new version with a different license but not for old versions.