[jlrubin]

> closed source

That's not really the problem here. The problem is that by using React, even in a closed source context, you are potentially setting yourself up to not successfully make an IP claim against facebook, even for unrelated technologies.

[Strom]

Not being able to sue with patents is not something I give much value to. Software patents aren't even valid where I live and operate. They concern me only as far as USA has the will to have a global jurisdiction. However if Facebook wants to sue me for something ridiculous and has the USA government's global help, then Apache 2.0 license isn't going to save me, they will find something else.

[imtringued]

Yeah and that is exactly the problem with the license.

You give up your right to sue facebook with ALL your patents while facebook only gives up the right to sue you with their REACT patent. We don't even know if there is such a thing as a "react patent".

[vonmoltke]

You absolutely do not "give up your right to sue facebook with ALL your patents". People keep saying this, but it isn't there.

If you live in a jurisdiction where the concept of software patents are void, as the GP indicates, the patent clause in the license is meaningless because there cannot be any patents on React in that jurisdiction.

[rmc]

Is it limited to software patents? e.g. if BMW uses React in a project, and FB has a patent which covers React, then I think FB can use all of BMW's patents without paying, and BMW either has a choice of changing away from React, or not suing FB. Could be helpful if FB wants to do something with cars.

[thecrazyone]

IANAL wait is this true?

The way I understood this conversation was that BMW (continuing your example) cannot sue facebook if facebook infringes them on an of their car patents but it's not a right or a grant or even a license of any sort.

[arnarbi]

I don't understand that last sentence, could you rephrase please?

[Vinnl]

Then again, Facebook isn't making IP claims against you for using React either.