[Reply inline.] On Tue, July 25, 2017 06:42, Jesse wrote: > While I personally believe that patent aggression from Facebook would be > suicidal for their open-source presence and gain them little, there is > enough of a possibility to raise some concern.
As I tried to emphasise previously, the problem with Facebook BSD+Patents license is incompatibility with use in a program under free software licenses including it seems GPLv3. If the ReactJS license is incompatible with GPLv3, we need not analyse further. The Facebook BSD+Patents does protect from much possibility of Facebook patent aggression. Facebook need not do anything worse than issue software under such a license. If license incompatibility would not be a problem, the most likely hazard would be indirect as in the example case which I cited from Aaron Williamson which I tried to modify for something closer to a hypothetical situation affecting some possible organisation using Koha. [See the Minimising Patent Problems section in my previous message quoted further below.] > I keep my fingers crossed > that Facebook will do the same for React as RocksDB, and dual-license > under > the APL. A significant distinction which might lead Facebook to change the license away from Facebook BSD+Patents for RocksDB but not for ReactJS is that much of the code in RocksDB is from LevelDB written at Google. Yet, Facebook originally released ReactJS under Apache License version 2 which gives hope. Thomas Dukleth Agogme 109 E 9th Street, 3D New York, NY 10003 USA http://www.agogme.com +1 212-674-3783 > > I have no arguments against using Preact; it is MIT licensed and seems to > be drop-in compatible with React (including JSX, if we decide to make use > of that in the future) aside from a few small differences. We could start > now with Preact and switch to React if the license situation is settled > down the road. > > 2017-07-24 9:21 GMT-06:00 Thomas Dukleth <kohade...@agogme.com>: > >> I take Kivilahti Olli-Antti's response as helpfully encouraging >> examination of alternatives to ReactJS. I also try to emphasise that >> the >> actual sufficiently disqualifying problems with the ReactJS license are >> with license incompatibility as opposed to some possibility of problems >> over some scenario with patents which might never become an issue for >> any >> Koha user or contributor. >> >> [Remainder of reply inline.] >> >> >> On Mon, July 24, 2017 10:25, Kivilahti Olli-Antti wrote: >> >> [...] >> >> >> LICENSE INCOMPATIBILITY. >> >> > I wouldn't be overtly alarmed by this license issue, >> >> The problem is primarily that the current ReactJS license seems to be >> incompatible with GPLv3, the license which we use for Koha as a whole. >> All the code which we incorporate into Koha, such as any programming >> libraries incorporated into Koha, must be compatible with the overall >> license for Koha. The Free Software Foundation (FSF) have a helpful >> guide >> to various software license and their GPL compatibility of various >> licenses, https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html . FSF have >> not yet included the Facebook BSD+Patents license in their licenses page >> which is updated very infrequently and cannot include every variation on >> standard license terms. In the absence of specific comment from FSF or >> their lawyers which we could obtain if the issue seemed too unclear, we >> may take the issue as carefully treated after consideration over months >> as >> reported by people at the Apache Software Foundation in communication >> with >> Facebook legal counsel confirming intended incompatibility between the >> Facebook BSD+Patents license for patent terms in Apache License version >> 2 >> (ALv2) where there is some language in GPLv3 which seems to also be >> incompatible on the same point of revocation of the implied patent >> license >> in the 3 clause BSD license. I cited Roy T Fielding's comment in my >> original message, >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LEGAL-303?focusedCommentId=16046579 >> . >> >> >> FREE SOFTWARE ALTERNATIVES. >> >> > however if there is a >> > more free alternative we should use it. >> >> Some have questioned whether the Facebook BSD+Patents license could >> qualify as a recognised free software license at all as the breadth of >> the >> patent license termination terms seem to violate the minimal >> requirements >> for freedom and the patent terms of the Open Standards Requirements of >> the >> Open Source Initiative (OSI), https://opensource.org/osr . The Facebook >> BSD+Patents license has very different terms from the OSI BSD+Patents >> license, https://opensource.org/licenses/BSDplusPatent . >> >> Some alternatives to ReactJS are under licenses for which there are no >> doubts about whether they are free software compatible with GPLv3. >> >> > I don't mind having inconveniences due to using more free software. >> > >> > Struggle for our privacy, freedom of speech, and environment is >> > inconvenient, but well worth the investment, however costly. >> > >> > The important framework improvements are "one-way data flow" and the >> > underlying "state machine" (Redux-compatibility). Maybe server-side >> > rendering. >> > Looks like atleast InfernoJS proclaims support for those. >> > >> >> MINIMISING PATENT PROBLEMS. >> >> There would be different issues to consider if the ReactJS license had >> some problematic patent terms but somehow not so problematic as to be >> incompatible with GPLv3. >> >> > Another take on the issue: >> > https://medium.com/@dwalsh.sdlr/react-facebook-and-the- >> revokable-patent-license-why-its-a-paper-25c40c50b562 >> >> Dennis Walsh ignores the license incompatibility issue of Facebook >> BSD+Patents license in relation to ALv2 and also seems to similarly >> affect >> GPLv3 and GPLv2. He assumes that the primary hazard over patents from a >> Facebook BSD+Patents license is from Facebook directly. He assumes that >> no Facebook patents exist which read on ReactJS where he did not find >> them >> easily enough and no one has reported them to him. He does not treat >> the >> breadth of conditions for patent termination unrelated to any particular >> software under the Facebook BSD+Patents license which obviates >> assumptions >> about costs of replacing software relative to the costs of litigation. >> He >> dismisses any alternative scenarios citing one particular unlikely case, >> however, the most likely scenarios are indirect from the breadth of >> termination conditions and outside the scope of anything which he has >> considered. Any scenario for which there is an actual problem may be >> unlikely, however, if you or your organisation are in the midst of such >> a >> scenario the likelihood of its occurrence is moot for you or your >> organisation. >> >> Problems in patent disputes are often indirect as in the scenario >> described by Aaron Williamson which I had originally cited, >> https://github.com/facebook/react/issues/10191#issuecomment-316380810 . >> Starting from Aaron's example I could imagine some scenario which >> corresponds to what I am informed is the usual type of problem which is >> faced over patents, however, my alteration of Aaron's example may suffer >> in some detail from not being a lawyer. A university with a state >> mandate >> in law to pursue patents arising from government funded research could >> be >> be substituted for Cisco in Aaron's example. An issue covered by a >> traditional patent, not one reading on software, could be the issue >> pursued against a Facebook subsidiary. After terminating all patent >> licenses granted to the university under the Facebook BSD+Patents >> license, >> Facebook might not pursue a patent action over ReactJS use by the >> university especially where the use prior to termination would have been >> licensed. Yet, the university's loss of any Facebook patent license to >> assert in defence may be the opportunity for a patent troll (holding >> patents without any product using them) to threaten the university over >> some patent reading on ReactJS. The patent troll would know that the >> university would be likely to agree to pay protection money to license >> the >> patent held by the troll to avoid the cost of litigation especially >> without a Facebook patent license for the university to assert in >> defence. >> The troll would also not have to risk any possible Facebook patents >> being >> asserted by the university to invalidate any claims in the patent which >> the troll would be asserting. The goal of the patent troll is to obtain >> protection money without much risk of actually having to face the >> financial costs or other hazards of litigation. >> >> Even if GPLv3 license compatibility would not be a problem and even if >> almost all Koha users would never have even a traditional patent nor a >> mandate to pursue patents, we should not create potential burdens upon >> organisations which may be candidates for using Koha beyond the >> relatively >> simple obligations respecting free software. Certainly, we should not >> create a burden which Aaron Williamson describes as "compliance requires >> a >> burdensome -- maybe impossible -- degree of diligence." >> >> >> Thomas Dukleth >> Agogme >> 109 E 9th Street, 3D >> New York, NY 10003 >> USA >> http://www.agogme.com >> +1 212-674-3783 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Koha-devel mailing list >> Koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org >> http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel >> website : http://www.koha-community.org/ >> git : http://git.koha-community.org/ >> bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/ >> > > > > -- > Jesse Weaver > _______________________________________________ Koha-devel mailing list Koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
