These columns and future topics should not be construed as specific legal advice. Although I`m a lawyer, I`m not your lawyer. The column presented here is only for informational purposes. Whenever you seek legal advice, your best approach is to always consult an experienced licensed lawyer in your jurisdiction. Facebook uses mostly open source projects, including react, a license combo called “BSD-Patents.” This means that they not only use a standard BSD license, but also add a patent. In addition to the very limited limitation of software reuse and distribution, the MIT license was the most popular license on GitHub from 2015. [UPDATE: It is normal for a patent license to involve weak retaliatory measures, that is, if you use React and sue FB for a React patent, you lose all the patents that have been granted to you for React. Note the circumference: it`s always React. FB`s license is different (stronger). Find out more here.] This article does not deal with the technical arguments for whether your organization should take over Facebook ReactJS (Facebook owns the ReactJS copyright), one of the many JavaScript frameworks available today. Rather, this article deals with Facebook`s strange licensing system, which now includes a combination of BSD open source software (OSS) and a separate patent document. In recent years, this new licensing system has led to many online discussions and organizations during their adoption of ReactJS.

The purpose of this article is to give instructions on what the new licensing system means, and perhaps more importantly what it does not mean. The ReactJS licensing scheme is an example of the importance of licensing with OSS and why you and your organization need to pay close attention to the terms and conditions of sale that are characteristic of your OSS usage, copying and distribution rights. In 2014, Facebook decided to move from ReactJS to BSD. If Facebook had stopped, there would be no problem. BSD and Apache licenses are allowed in the category, as there are few restrictions and obligations for the licensee. Permissive licenses are different from copyLeft or unauthorized licenses, such as the General Public License (GPL). Licenses such as the GPL will impose a number of restrictions and obligations on the licensee that do not do so, such as .B the obligation to share the changes under certain conditions. Licenses such as BSD, Apache or MIT do not have such requirements to share changes. From a legal point of view, I do not know why anyone would take the time to switch from Apache to another generous license. There is nothing substantial to be gained from such an action.

On the other hand, in light of the questions about patents and related objects, I was able to understand why a team would choose to switch from BSD or MIT to Apache.