Re:Explaining React's license
by kavok on Saturday August 19, 2017 @01:52AM
(#15051907)
If all situations are equal, why do they need the protection anyways? This is out of step with every other comparable library / framework / whatever.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Explaining React's license
by jaredklewis on Saturday August 19, 2017 @02:35AM
(#15052013)
What protection? The PATENTS takes rights away from Facebook, and gives rights to grantees. Facebook is in a stronger position without it. They added it to be nice.
Without patents file:
- Facebook can sue you for any reason, including react related patent infringement
- You have no patent grant for anything in react
- You can sue Facebook for anything, including patent infringement.
With patents file:
- Facebook can sue you for any reason, except for react related patent infringement
- you have a grant for any Facebook patents related to react
- You can sue Facebook for anything, including patent infringement of any kind. If you do sue them for patent related infringement, you lose the grant above (i.e. You are in same position as if there was no PATENTS file)
Wrong. Without patents file there is an implicit patent grant.
I was wondering about this as I hadn't heard of it before. Found this http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Implicit_patent_licence .
It seems like yes it's true that there is an implicit grant, but it's not well established in case law.
exactly what patents are covered by this 'implicit grant'?