Thanks, that's helpful. Pam
On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 10:25 PM Richard Fontana <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 01:46:29AM +0000, Pamela Chestek wrote: > > On the basis that it is a breach of the further restrictions of Section 6 > > of the GPLv2? > > Well properly speaking GPL incompatibility should be grounded in the > 'no further restrictions' clause. "Orthodox GPL (in)compatibility" is > actually a sort of semi-private semi-joke that goes back to > discussions I had in 2007 with Bradley Kuhn. But actually it might not > really apply in this case. I'm not sure because "orthodox" > compatibility theory was never really well defined. > > The reason to treat the Facebook license (including patent terms) as > GPL-incompatible is for consistency with the 'precedent' of the Apache > License 2.0 being regarded as GPLv2-incompatible by the FSF where the > patent termination clause by itself was assumed (and largely continues > to be assumed) to be a basis for GPL-incompatibility. It is possible > to conclude that the Apache License 2.0 is GPLv2-incompatible without > addressing patent termination, however, because the upstream > indemnification clause provides an independent (and I think fairly > reasonable) basis for the same conclusion. I happen to think that the > view that the patent termination clause of the Apache License 2.0 is a > "further restriction" wrt GPLv2 is either nonsensical or else can only > be understood on political-historical grounds. > > The FSF view on the Apache License is IMO logically inconsistent with > other FSF precedent, as shown by the conclusions that CC0 and the > Clear BSD license (both of which assert that no patent license is > granted at all) are GPL compatible. > > > Richard > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 8:51 PM Richard Fontana <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 12:58:40AM +0200, Haďkel wrote: > > > > It appears that since April, 2015, Facebook updated their open source > > > > patent grant. > > > > > > > > https://code.facebook.com/posts/1639473982937255/updating-our-open-source-patent-grant/ > > > > > > > > Some companies like Google decided to ban Facebook software from > their > > > > toolbox since. > > > > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9271331 > > > > > > > > The actual conditions added to all Facebook projects: > > > > https://github.com/facebook/osquery/blob/master/PATENTS > > > > > > > > Potentially, it could mean that no Facebook open source projects can > > > > be shipped in Fedora including high-profile projects like > > > > React.Native. > > > > > > > > The worse being that such javascript library are often bundled > without > > > > notice ... > > > > > > The Red Hat legal team looked at this quite recently. FWIW we don't > > > have an objection to code covered by these terms. I don't believe > > > there is a Fedora-based policy reason for objecting to these terms, > > > since even with the patent terms the license is a free software > > > license. > > > > > > (It may be noted that the combination of the BSD license and the > > > Facebook patent terms is GPL-incompatible at least under orthodox GPL > > > compatibility analysis.) > > > > > > Richard > > > _______________________________________________ > > > legal mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/[email protected] > > > >
_______________________________________________ legal mailing list [email protected] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/[email protected]
