[License-discuss] Views on React licensing?

[Tzeng, Nigel H.]

On 12/5/16, 6:55 AM, "License-discuss on behalf of Henrik Ingo"
<license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org on behalf of
henrik.ingo at avoinelama.fi> wrote:


>On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 6:26 AM, Richard Fontana <fontana at opensource.org>
>wrote:
>> - is it good practice, and does it affect the open source status of
>>   software, to supplement OSI-approved licenses with separate patent
>>   license grants or nonasserts? (This has been done by some other
>>   companies without significant controversy.)
>
>This should of course be discouraged. However, I sympathize with this
>kind of setup if it is intended to be a proposal for a license that
>doesn't yet exist. If Facebook a) intends for the combined license to
>qualify as open source, and b) eventually submit it for OSI approval,
>then it seems to me this is a natural path towards such a goal.

React is BSD and therefore already open source.

As far as I can tell the OSD doesn¹t explicitly address patents.
Heartache with CC0 wasn¹t based on compliance with the OSD.  Any concerns
with React likewise.

>> - should Facebook be encouraged to seek OSI approval for the React
>>   license including the patent license grant?
>
>Yes. As far as I can see, the BSD + additional stuff should be a
>single file and single license, and OSI approved.

Why not just use Apache?  Because Facebook wants a competitive advantage.
I don¹t see how Facebook is any more trustworthy than any other
corporation nor do I see any difference between Oracle, Facebook, Google
or Microsoft that isn¹t a CEO change away.  Sun was very pro-open source
until it went out of business and was acquired by Oracle.

Patent truces favor the big guys and have zero impact on patent trolls.  I
see little need to "allow terms where those companies actually
contributing open source software have an equal or even stronger position
in patent suits² because the level of contributions changes over time,
sometimes rather quickly.

I believe that license terms should be non-discriminatory and range from
more business-friendly terms to more commons-friendly terms so there is a
wide range of applicable open source license for all business cases.