News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:React 16 by mihular on Tuesday September 26, 2017 @03:18PM (#15341693)
I'd really like to see that written black on white,though.
Re:React 16 by DannyBee on Sunday October 01, 2017 @04:34PM (#15379650)
Black and white is not as good as everyone seems to think. There are reasons you don't enumerate every possibility ;) (courts will then interpret that as a complete list, instead of extending it to cover similar situations)

If you had black and white fair use, for example, you'd just be railing against the fact that courts wouldn't extend it to cover new similar thing X.

Black and white is good for establishing baselines in law (IE "these things over here are definitely okay, and everything else should be judged by these factors" It's rarely that great if you are trying to make a license that stands the test of time and march of technology.

Re:React 16 by TimTheTinker on Tuesday September 26, 2017 @07:40PM (#15343635)
The fact that MIT and BSD licensed code (implicit patent impunity) can be re-licensed under the Apache license (explicit patent impunity) is enough evidence for me.

Reference: http://apache.org/legal/resolved.html#category-a

Re:React 16 by ec109685 on Wednesday September 27, 2017 @12:24AM (#15344912)
What does re-licensed mean? You can’t take mit licensed code and slap a Apache License on it.
Re:React 16 by TimTheTinker on Wednesday September 27, 2017 @03:33PM (#15351464)
You can create a derivative work and license that under Apache.
Re:React 16 by ec109685 on Friday October 06, 2017 @01:41AM (#15414663)
Not if it uses copyrighted MIT licensed code.