Ok, I think that makes sense. So, to restate, that means that RocksDB (or whatever) might have Facebook patented code/material in it, and Facebook is granting a very generous grant to use those patents.
...until a given organization comes into patent conflict with any of Facebook's patents, at which time their grants disappear.
So if I'm understanding that correctly, doesn't that basically mean the same thing? You're no longer allowed to use their software?
My problem is that I'm working for a subsidiary of a really big company that is directly competing with some parts of Facebook. There's a non-zero chance that some part of my company, far far away from me, will initiate an action that triggers this clause some time in the future.
In short: my company's ability to use a growing set of otherwise high-quality projects is greatly impacted because of this legal language. I also strongly suspect this isn't limited to just my organization.
One way or another, thank you for your attention.
I would love to hear from any other members of large organizations about this matter. Granted, my view is pretty limited, but this doesn't strike me as a good way forward for the overall free software community.
AFAICT, Apple finds this patent grant acceptable, whereas previous versions were unacceptable. Apple is well known for suing competitors for patent infringement, so they obviously feel that the loss of this patent grant would be acceptable, that the devolution to pure BSD is enough protection.
Comments
Ok, I think that makes sense. So, to restate, that means that RocksDB (or whatever) might have Facebook patented code/material in it, and Facebook is granting a very generous grant to use those patents.
...until a given organization comes into patent conflict with any of Facebook's patents, at which time their grants disappear.
So if I'm understanding that correctly, doesn't that basically mean the same thing? You're no longer allowed to use their software?
"until a given organization comes into patent conflict with any of Facebook's patents"
Note that the grants only disappear if you initiate the conflict; they don't disappear if Facebook initiates and you counter-sue.
Ok, so that's a useful clarification.
My problem is that I'm working for a subsidiary of a really big company that is directly competing with some parts of Facebook. There's a non-zero chance that some part of my company, far far away from me, will initiate an action that triggers this clause some time in the future.
In short: my company's ability to use a growing set of otherwise high-quality projects is greatly impacted because of this legal language. I also strongly suspect this isn't limited to just my organization.
One way or another, thank you for your attention.
I would love to hear from any other members of large organizations about this matter. Granted, my view is pretty limited, but this doesn't strike me as a good way forward for the overall free software community.
AFAICT, Apple finds this patent grant acceptable, whereas previous versions were unacceptable. Apple is well known for suing competitors for patent infringement, so they obviously feel that the loss of this patent grant would be acceptable, that the devolution to pure BSD is enough protection.
Well, Apple certainly qualifies as a big company, thanks for the input.