1. 25
  1.  

  2. 7

    The related GitHub issue is quite interesting to follow : https://github.com/facebook/graphql/issues/351

    1. 6

      Can anyone comment to the FUD-meter on this article? I do realize that the article addresses this specifically, but wanted y’all’s input.

      1. 5

        I think the concerns are quite real. Facebook has a patent on GraphQL but does not liberally license it to users. Which means, currently, that every implementation of GraphQL from outside Facebook, and possibly even every server-side user, is in violation of that patent. Which is a risk. One that doesn’t really need to exist, given Facebook’s willingness to license patents liberally (see React). Facebook’s legal team has been notified, so hopefully this will be resolved.

        Until it’s resolved, as I understand it, every server implementation of GraphQL is definitely in violation of Facebook’s patent unless they already have talked with Facebook themselves. (i.e. I expect Github has talked with Facebook a lot already since they’ve been working closely together on a variety of topics already, but did Apollo Server/Meteor talk to Facebook? etc, etc). Client-side implementations, I don’t think so. I am not a lawyer, though.

        1. 5

          I think the concerns are quite real.

          The concerns are quite real, but to say that they’re unique to Facebook/React is bizarre and unfounded; software patents are a huge problem that plague everyone who uses software distributed under a license that doesn’t have an explicit patent grant.

          Everyone who uses BSD-licensed or MIT-licensed software is at risk if they operate in a jurisdiction that recognizes software patents.

          1. 1

            That’s one opinion, and the other one is that BSD and MIT license give implicit patent grant so you (licensee) are not at risk. On the other hand, that can be a risk to licenser (of “losing” patent). So one theory is that this is why Facebook came up with BSD+PATENTS: to replace implicit patent grant with explicit one so that they get protection in exchange of “losing” patent.

            You are saying BSD+PATENTS is better than BSD for users. But if BSD does not give any patent grant, why is BSD+PATENTS better than BSD for Facebook? After all, it’s Facebook’s decision, not users’.

            1. 1

              But if BSD does not give any patent grant, why is BSD+PATENTS better than BSD for Facebook? After all, it’s Facebook’s decision, not users’.

              Because accepting external contributions to an OSS codebase that doesn’t have a patent grant is a terrible idea if you operate a business in a jurisdiction that fails to recognize the invalidity of software patents.

        2. 1

          Over 9000

        3. 2

          Burn all BSD-licensed software! Even left-pad has patented functionality (padding character strings in O(n^3)).

          1. 2

            Wouldn’t that be akin to amputating the whole leg for a mild toe infection?