[yasserkaddour]

Gitlab put on hold their GraphQL implementation due to the patent. Gitlab Senior Director of Legal Affairs said:

"If we were to allow this license, it could lead to potential future conflicts with software licensed under Apache. Also, we could be impairing the future rights of our customers. Essentially, this is not really an open source product based on the implications of the license. While there is no payment of cash, payment is in the form of giving up future rights." [1]

[1] https://github.com/facebook/graphql/issues/351#issuecomment-...

[carussell]

A couple clarifications:

- She is talking there about the PATENTS grant in React and most other Facebook software, not about GraphQL.

- This is immediately preceded by a mention of the Apache Foundation. When she says it could conflict with Apache, it either means Apache Foundation projects (since they wouldn't be able accept contributions without reversing their stance), or she's suggesting that Apache Foundation might issue future revision of the license that specifically breaks compatibility. Because as of right now, there is no conflict with Apache-the-License, only Apache-the-Foundation, and it doesn't really matter how Apache Foundation feels about Facebook's PATENTS grant wrt license compatibility. The conflict is a policy one, not a legal one.

[btown]

In the source she is referring to the likely possibility that GraphQL ends up being licensed under the React PATENTS grant.

[carussell]

I don't understand the point of your comment.

The comment I responded to framed the situation as if GitLab took a look at the terms of the GraphQL spec, realized that it wasn't good for them, and made the above comments to explain why. The reality is, GitLab realized the current lack of FRAND-RF terms for GraphQL wasn't good for them, and they made the above comments only in response to somebody else's proposed solution to the current situation. That is, the comment doesn't explain why GitLab isn't using GraphQL right now, it explains why GitLab wouldn't use GraphQL if Facebook included the PATENTS grant. Which means that if someone is trying to understand the current situation or why GitLab originally halted GraphQL development, the comment I responded to isn't going to help anyone, because GraphQL is not and never has been subject to the terms of that grant.

If you're still not able to make sense of this, look no further than the first person account from the author of the Medium article referenced (who happens to be the same person who opened the issue):

> I've been a Facebook licensing defender for other OSS like React, but I think this is a completely different issue

Emphasis added by me.

[yomly]

Any chance you can unsnippet that quote?

In the longterm can the HN team to look at how snippets work on mobile.

Reading that on my phone was horrendous...

[CuriousCosmic]

Reading it on desktop wasn't great either

[yasserkaddour]

Sorry, with Hacker News Enhancement Suite[1] it looked great.

[1] https://github.com/etcet/HNES

[kevindqc]

I just installed this and now carussel's comment is empty, but I can see it in incognito mode. Also the textbox where I'm typing this doesn't even fit and has a scrollbar.. gonna skip this one..

Edit: Oh. Never mind, there seems to be two buttons to expand/collapse?

[CuriousCosmic]

looks useful but it breaks my stylish dark theme so im going to have to pass on this extension

[alfonsodev]

> "While there is no payment of cash, payment is in the form of giving up future rights."

This is a very nice way to put it, I guess it also applies to the React license issue.

[hdhzy]

Great insight, thanks for sharing!