Re:Relicensing React, Jest, Flow, and Immutable.js
by Sacho on Saturday September 23, 2017 @12:40AM
(#15318146)
I agree that it is a legitimate concern if you believe that only software patents are a problem but want to keep your other patents available.
They probably left it this way because there is no legal definition of a "software patent" - they cannot differentiate between those and "other patents". It's not like "other patents" are all sunshine and rainbows either - the patent system is fundamentally broken.
Re:Relicensing React, Jest, Flow, and Immutable.js
by magic_quotes on Friday September 22, 2017 @10:12PM
(#15317646)
IANAL, etc. This is indeed a very problematic bit. I'm not sure if it is even possible to restate that patent grant in such a way that the termination clause would apply only to software patent assertions and simultaneously keep the text sufficiently unambiguous.
[1] The language I'm thinking of is the part that says that the license terminates if you initiate "any Patent Assertion: (i) against Facebook or any of its subsidiaries or corporate affiliates, (ii) . . . "