[tcheard]

> So React is damned for including a PATENTS license

A patent grant is a good thing, you want a patent grant as a user of OSS.

The problem people have with React's patent grant is the one sided terms of the patent grant (and the fear that Facebook could hold you hostage with those terms).

> Geez, wish they would just re-license under Apache 2.0.

This would be my preference.

IMO, for the React issue, even if the issue is a paper tiger (https://medium.com/@dwalsh.sdlr/react-facebook-and-the-revok...), this puts a massive hit on Facebook's OSS credibility. Even if the fear was irrational, many people are never going to understand that now and many people won't touch any Facebook OSS because of that fear.

Facebook would probably solve a lot of that credibility loss by just re-licensing under Apache 2.0.

[koko775]

Unfortunately that logic seems to lead to a strategy of FUD in the direction of a different patent license, which if that approach is validated then leads to being less open doesn't it?

[gcp]

I don't get what you are saying entirely, but companies like Microsoft and Broadcom, of all places, have given patent licenses with their open source work that were not as one-sided as Facebook's was.

If Microsoft and Broadcom are better OSS+patents citizens then you are, you have a serious problem.

[chrisco255]

Unlike Microsoft, Facebook hasn't gone around demanding royalties: https://www.infoworld.com/article/3042699/open-source-tools/...

[gcp]

Microsoft hasn't demanded royalties for things covered under their patent license (duh).

That article is just another reminder why one cannot afford to give Facebook a pass on this.

[chrisco255]

Facebook owns thousands of patents and thus far, has not been aggressive with them. They have only been used defensively.