News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Relicensing React, Jest, Flow, and Immutable.js by jibcage on Friday September 22, 2017 @09:50PM (#15317568)
Can somebody who speaks legalese translate Red Hat's Patent Promise into more parseable English? I'm curious how it works, but the wording is pretty obscure to me.
Re:Relicensing React, Jest, Flow, and Immutable.js by jklein11 on Friday September 22, 2017 @10:23PM (#15317684)
I am not a lawyer, but my take on it is:

Red Hat holds patents but promises not to enforce them. This means anyone can use the IP without worrying about being sued for infringement. No one else can claim they own the IP because Red Hat already owns it. They also have a clause saying that if Red Hat sells the IP, the buyer needs to uphold the same promise.

Re:Relicensing React, Jest, Flow, and Immutable.js by njharman on Saturday September 23, 2017 @03:36AM (#15318670)
I am also not a lawyer. But I don't think a "promise" is a legally enforceable concept.
Re:Relicensing React, Jest, Flow, and Immutable.js by gpderetta on Saturday September 23, 2017 @03:50AM (#15318705)
I'm not a lawyer either, but the estoppel doctrine should make it enforceable.
Re:Relicensing React, Jest, Flow, and Immutable.js by npsomaratna on Saturday September 23, 2017 @08:26AM (#15319436)
3rd year law student (among other things!) here. As you've mentioned, the doctrine of promissory estoppel should make this enforceable in law.
Re:Relicensing React, Jest, Flow, and Immutable.js by c0ndu17 on Saturday September 23, 2017 @01:44PM (#15320807)
This whole I'm not a lawyer business brings this to mind... https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DKF9KCcXkAA11ez.jpg
Re:Relicensing React, Jest, Flow, and Immutable.js by haikuginger on Saturday September 23, 2017 @06:35AM (#15319125)
I am a fourth non-lawyer, and this is all RICO.
Re:Relicensing React, Jest, Flow, and Immutable.js by mcbits on Friday September 22, 2017 @10:21PM (#15317677)
The way I'm reading it, if you develop free/open source software that infringes Red Hat's patents, Red Hat promises not to sue unless you sue them first.

The "combined" part seems to be saying you can also develop a system that's partly proprietary, as long as the proprietary parts are simple and not using Red Hat's patents.

If they sell a patent, the buyer must agree to the same promise.

The promise won't protect you if you infringe someone else's IP, even if it's related to one of Red Hat's patents.

Re:Relicensing React, Jest, Flow, and Immutable.js by Zarel on Saturday September 23, 2017 @02:08AM (#15318412)
> promises not to sue unless you sue them first

Isn't that exactly the same as Facebook's license grant?

Re:Relicensing React, Jest, Flow, and Immutable.js by mcbits on Saturday September 23, 2017 @10:57AM (#15320011)
Red Hat: You can use our patents if we can use your software.

Facebook: You can use our software if we can use your patents.

That's my severely over-simplified interpretation. The most significant difference is that Red Hat's promise extends to FOSS in general, though apparently not proprietary software. Facebook's license applies only to specific Facebook FOSS code, but it can be used in proprietary software.

Re:Relicensing React, Jest, Flow, and Immutable.js by ec109685 on Sunday September 24, 2017 @06:35PM (#15326852)
Your interpretation is wrong. RedHat’s promise is revoked if you sue them for any patent infringement:

>Our Promise also does not extend to the actions of a party (including past actions) if at any time the party or its affiliate asserts a patent in proceedings against Red Hat (or its affiliate) or any offering of Red Hat (or its affiliate) (including a cross-claim or counterclaim).

So RedHat can hypothetically use all of your software patents and still sue you for infringement based on their patents if you sue them.

Re:Relicensing React, Jest, Flow, and Immutable.js by mcbits on Sunday September 24, 2017 @09:33PM (#15327499)
Yeah, I mentioned that above: "unless you sue them first." That's not a major difference from Facebook's terms.
Re:Relicensing React, Jest, Flow, and Immutable.js by ec109685 on Friday October 06, 2017 @01:42AM (#15414667)
The how are Facebook and RedHat different?
Re:Relicensing React, Jest, Flow, and Immutable.js by mcbits on Saturday October 07, 2017 @06:18PM (#15426000)
To rephrase again... regarding patents, assuming you don't first sue RedHat or Facebook, then:

RedHat won't sue you over your FOSS project that infringes any of RedHat patents, but your proprietary software is fair game.

Facebook won't sue you for infringement caused by using one of their libraries in your software (FOSS or not), but your independent project (FOSS or not) that infringes any Facebook patent is fair game.

Re:Relicensing React, Jest, Flow, and Immutable.js by ungamed on Saturday September 23, 2017 @04:58AM (#15318888)
Facebook can sue you first.
Re:Relicensing React, Jest, Flow, and Immutable.js by madeofpalk on Saturday September 23, 2017 @06:48AM (#15319158)
Sure, but you won't loose the patent grant.

    if Facebook [...] files a lawsuit alleging patent infringement against you
    in the first instance, and you respond by filing a patent infringement
    counterclaim in that lawsuit against that party that is unrelated to the
    Software, the license granted hereunder will not terminate
Re:Relicensing React, Jest, Flow, and Immutable.js by joatmon-snoo on Friday September 22, 2017 @10:19PM (#15317672)
To the extent a party makes, uses, sells, offers to sell, imports, or otherwise transfers Covered FOSS, Red Hat agrees not to use such actions as a basis for enforcing its patents against the party ("Our Promise"), subject to the limitations herein.

If I read this right, Red Hat promises to not sue anyone for using/transferring FOSS whether or not such an action infringes on Red Hat's patents - they will only use patents to defend against litigation. (IANAL.)