再深刻分析这个问题，就要梳理 Facebook Patents license 的重要条目对开源的影响了。

Facebook Patents license 的重要条目：

Additional Grant of Patent Rights Version 2

"Software" means the React software distributed by Facebook, Inc.

Facebook, Inc. ("Facebook") hereby grants to each recipient of the Software
("you") a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, irrevocable
(subject to the termination provision below) license under any Necessary
Claims, to make, have made, use, sell, offer to sell, import, and otherwise
transfer the Software. For avoidance of doubt, no license is granted under
Facebook's rights in any patent claims that are infringed by (i) modifications
to the Software made by you or any third party or (ii) the Software in
combination with any software or other technology.

The license granted hereunder will terminate, automatically and without notice,
if you (or any of your subsidiaries, corporate affiliates or agents) initiate
directly or indirectly, or take a direct financial interest in, any Patent
Assertion: (i) against Facebook or any of its subsidiaries or corporate
affiliates, (ii) against any party if such Patent Assertion arises in whole or
in part from any software, technology, product or service of Facebook or any of
its subsidiaries or corporate affiliates, or (iii) against any party relating

再核阅 Facebook Patents license 的两个关键点，其对“默认许可”是否仍能成立各有奥妙影响。笔者的不雅点是，很可能使情况确切反而不如没有这个 Facebook Patents license，不过负面影响有限。

to the Software. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if Facebook or any of its
subsidiaries or corporate affiliates files a lawsuit alleging patent
infringement against you in the first instance, and you respond by filing a
patent infringement counterclaim in that lawsuit against that party that is
unrelated to the Software, the license granted hereunder will not terminate
under section (i) of this paragraph due to such counterclaim.

A "Necessary Claim" is a claim of a patent owned by Facebook that is

A "Patent Assertion" is any lawsuit or other action alleging direct, indirect,
or contributory infringement or inducement to infringe any patent, including a
cross-claim or counterclaim.

即使分析以上两个要点，也要细心衡量，须推敲实际背景中的重要身分：

• 如不雅无专利许可，会若何？
• 许可不涉及本质性的对价。
• 许可涉及复杂的国际司法情况。

 扼要而言，关键点有两个：

• Facebook 对免费专利许可设了限制前提：你弗成以诉我常识产权侵权；
• 专利许可所涉及的专利，仅限于所涉及的开源软件本身，对于软件修改后或与其他技偶合营应用而可能侵犯的专利，不在许可之列。 

-- Abraham Lincoln, Second lecture>开源竽暌闺专利的碰撞

司法背景扑朔迷离

就背景身分 1 而言，实际情况中，广泛存在开源许可证仅涉及版权而躲避了专利的情况。这是社区傍边大年夜家广泛可以接收的前提。未说起专利，并不等于没有赐与专利许可，尤其在许可证中没有明示“专利要另收钱”的情况下。有一个奥妙的器械，可以叫作基于诚实信用或善意公平原则的“默认许可”。

开源软件的作者或供给者，同时又作为相干专利的专利权人时，在供给了明白免除版权费用典范可证的情况下，如不雅在向用户交付产品的同时，没有明示要收取专利费，“默认许可”应当成立。大年夜学术评论辩论的角度，也有将之称为“专利权权应用尽”的。然则因为未收钱，“专利权权应用尽”的成立更有艰苦些。笔者照样保持“默认许可”路线。

但照样很遗憾，司法世界不合于软件世界。在软件世界里，每一段算法法度榜样，在给定前提后，都邑给你履行出一个清跋扈的结不雅。司法世界里很难如斯。“默认许可”是否会获得司法完全支撑？真的很难讲，各个国度，甚至一个国度在不应时代，都可能对类似的情况采取不合的思路并给出不合的分寸和偏向的判决。在美国、英国、澳大年夜利亚等海洋法系的国度，前后判例的一致性会比较高。而中国、德国等大年夜陆法系国度，变更可能较大年夜。以下将要评论辩论的诸多问题均受各国司法差别身分影响，以下不再赘述。

　　推荐阅读

　　Ubuntu 新 Dock 抢先看，不欲重现 Unity 的体验

【51CTO晃荡】8.26 带你深度懂得清华大年夜学、搜狗基于算法的IT运维实践与摸索 据 OMGUbuntu 报道，Ubuntu Desktop 团队内部正在创建一个 Dash Dock 的分支，在 Dash to Dock（热点的 G>>>详细阅读

本文标题：踢掉FB+PL：Apache的开源激进宣言？

地址：http://www.17bianji.com/lsqh/36782.html

 1/2    1