News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Explaining React's license. Parent comment

Re:Explaining React's license by allover on Saturday August 19, 2017 @10:54AM (#15053702)
> I've seen it pointed out before though that it would fall back to just the BSD license and others countered saying that was definitely not the case

Those others were wrong. Facebook have made this very clear in their FAQ [1]:

> Does termination of the additional patent grant in the Facebook BSD+Patents license cause the copyright license to also terminate?

> No.

[1] https://code.facebook.com/pages/850928938376556

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Explaining React's license by DougBTX on Saturday August 19, 2017 @12:13PM (#15054137)
That answer only addresses the "copyright license", others argue that plain BSD is a "license to use".

If BSD is a "license to use", then it is implicitly a copyright license _and_ a patent licence.

Assuming the above, the argument goes that the implicit patent license in plain BSD is overridden by the explicit patent license in BSD+Patents, and that the explicit one is much more restrictive than the (unwritten) implicit one.

The FAQ doesn't address that.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Explaining React's license by abiox on Sunday August 20, 2017 @03:17AM (#15057334)
From what I understand, React isn't under patent, so what patents would be 'implicitly licensed'?
[ Parent | on HN ]