对 Apache 基金会禁止将 BSD+专利许可证（FB + PL）用于其项目的批评，在理性的审视之下是无法成立的。
Criticism of the Apache Foundation's ban on the BSD+ patent license (FB + PL) for its project is untenable under a rational scrutiny.
最近，Apache 基金会将 Facebook 公司 BSD + 专利许可证下的代码重新分类为 “X 类”，从而有效地阻止了其未来对 Apache 基金会项目的贡献。这一举动再度引发了对专利授权的争议[1]，但是像开源社区的许多事件一样，与实际情况相比，这个争议更具倾向性。事实上，这样做不太可能影响 React.js 的采用，对 BSD +专利许可证（FB + PL）的批评大多数不能在理性的审视下成立。
Recently, the Apache foundation reclassified the code under Facebook's BSD + patent license as "X class", effectively blocking its future contribution to the Apache foundation project. The move has renewed controversy over patent licensing, [1], but, like many events in the open source community, the dispute is more tendentious than it is. In fact, this is unlikely to affect the adoption of React.js, and most criticism of the BSD + patent license (FB + PL) cannot be established under a rational scrutiny.
官方名称为“专利权的补充授权第二版[2]”的 Facebook 专利授权条款已经生效多年。它用于非常受欢迎的 React.js 代码，该代码是一种用于呈现用户界面的 JavaScript 库。使用该代码的主要技术公司的名单令人印象深刻[3]，其中包括像 Netflix 这样面向消费者的巨头公司，当然还有 Facebook 自身。（LCTT 译注：国内包括百度、阿里云等顶级互联网公司也在使用它，但是据闻这些公司在纷纷考虑更换对该库的依赖。）
The Facebook patent licensing term, which is officially entitled "supplementary license of patent rights, Second Edition [2]", has been in effect for many years. It is used in very popular React.js code, a JavaScript library for rendering user interfaces. The list of major technology companies that use the code is impressive, [3], which includes consumer giants such as Netflix and, of course, Facebook itself. (LCTT: the top Internet Co such as Baidu and Alibaba cloud are also using it, but it is understood that these companies are considering changing their dependence on the library.)
对旧授权的新反应
A new response to an old mandate
对这个消息的反应是令人惊讶的，因为并行专利许可模式并不是什么新鲜事。 Facebook 在 2013 年发布了 BSD + 专利授权许可证（2015 年进行了修订）。而 Google 2010 年也在 WebM 编解码器上有些高调地使用了类似的模型。该许可模式涉及两个并列和同时授权的权利：软件版权的 BSD 许可，以及单独授予的执行该软件的专利授权。将两者合在一起意味着有两个独立和平行的授权权利。在这方面，它与 Apache 2.0 许可证非常相似，与 BSD 一样，Apache 2.0 是一个许可证，并且还包含与版权许可授权一起存在的防御性终止条款。
The response to the news is surprising, because parallel patent licensing patterns are nothing new. Facebook issued the BSD + patent license in 2013 (revised in 2015). Google also used a similar model on the WebM codec in 2010. The licensing model involves two simultaneous and concurrent Rights: the BSD license for software copyright, and the patent license granted separately to the software. Putting the two together means two separate and parallel authorization rights. In this respect, it is very similar to the Apache 2 license, and, like BSD, Apache 2 is a license and contains defensive termination provisions associated with copyright licensing.
对 Apache 基金会通告的大部分反应造成了混乱，例如有篇文章[4]误导性地称之为“陷阱”。事实上，许多开源许可证都有防御性的终止条款，这些规定大多被认为是阻止专利诉讼的合理机制，而不是陷阱。它们是规则而不是例外；所有具有专利授权的主要开源许可证也具有防御性的终止条款——虽然每个条款略有不同。在 Apache 所拒绝的 Facebook 专利授权与 Apache 对其项目所采取的 Apache 2.0 许可证之间，其中的区别比争议提出的更为微妙。
Most of the reactions to the Apache foundation announcement have caused confusion, for example, an article called "trap" by [4]". In fact, many open source licenses have a defensive termination clause that is mostly considered a reasonable mechanism for blocking patent litigation, not a trap. They are rules, not exceptions; all patent based open source licenses have defensive termination provisions - although each clause is slightly different. The difference between the Facebook patent license rejected by Apache and the Apache 2 license adopted by Apache for its project is more subtle than the one proposed by the dispute.
防御性终止条款有多种风格
There are many styles of defensive termination clauses
防御性终止条款在两个主要方面有所不同：终止条款的触发和权利终止的范围。
The defensive termination clause differs in two main respects: the termination of the clause and the scope of termination of the right.
关于权利终止的范围，有两个阵营：仅终止专利授权（包括 Apache 2.0、Eclipse 公共许可证和 Facebook 专利授权）以及也同时终止版权许可（Mozilla 公共许可证和 GPL v3）。换句话说，对于大多数的许可证，提起专利侵权诉讼只能导致专利权的终止；对于其他许可证来说，提起专利诉讼能够同时导致版权许可的终止，即让某人停止使用该代码。版权许可终止是一个更强大的反专利机制，对于私营企业来说风险更大，因此导致一些私营公司拒绝使用 GPL v3 或 MPL 代码。
On the right to terminate the two camps: the only termination of patents (including Apache 2, Eclipse public license and Facebook patents) and also terminated the copyright license (Mozilla public license and GPL V3). In other words, for most of the license, filed a patent infringement lawsuit can only lead to the termination of the patent right; for other licenses, filed a patent lawsuit can also lead to the termination of the copyright license, which make sb stop using the code. Copyright licensing termination is a more powerful anti patent mechanism, which is more risky for private enterprises, so some Private Companies refuse to use GPL, V3 or MPL code.
与大多数其他开源许可证相比，Facebook 专利授权触发终止的阈值不同。例如，在 Apache 2.0 中，专利授权的终止是由对该许可证下的软件提出指控的专利权利主张引发的。这个想法是为软件创建一个“专利共同体”。大多数其他开源许可证大致遵循这个推演。（但在 Facebook 许可证中，）如果被许可人向 Facebook 或任何对 Facebook 产品提出指控的第三方提出权利主张，Facebook 专利许可也将终止。在这方面，终止触发机制类似于 IBM 多年前撰写的 Common Public License 1.0 （CPL）中的终止触发机制。（“如果接收者利用适用于本软件的专利对贡献者提出专利诉讼，则该贡献者根据本协议授予该接收者的任何专利许可，将在提起诉讼之日终止。”）
Unlike most other open source licenses, the threshold for Facebook patent license termination is different. For example, in Apache 2, the termination of patent licensing is triggered by patent rights allegations against software under the license. The idea is to create a patent community for software". Most other open source licenses follow this inference broadly. (but in the Facebook license) Facebook's patent license will be terminated if the licensee claims to the Facebook or any third party who has made charges against the Facebook products. In this regard, the termination trigger mechanism is similar to the termination trigger mechanism in Common Public License 1 (CPL) written by IBM many years ago. ("if the recipient applies for a patent action against the contributor in respect of the patent applicable to the software, the patent award granted by the contributor to the recipient under this agreement will expire on the date of litigation."
天下无新事
Nothing is new in the world
Facebook 授权范围的防御性终止条款在开源场景之外的专利许可中很常见。如果被许可人向许可人提出专利权利主张，大多数专利许可将被终止。原因是许可人不想在专利战争中被单方面“解除武装”。大多数专利只有在竞争对手起诉专利所有人时才被防御性使用。A 起诉 B，然后 B 起诉 A，导致互相伤害。如果 B 在没有广泛的防御性终止条款的情况下以开源许可证发布其软件，则 B 可能没有追索权，并且为其开源代码的发布付出高昂的代价。A 在免费利用 B 的软件进行开发的同时，还起诉 B 专利侵权。
The defensive termination provisions of the Facebook scope are common in patent licensing beyond the open source scenario. Most of the patent licenses will be terminated if the licensee proposes a patent claim to the licensor. The reason is that the Licensor does not want to disarm the tablet in the patent war". Most patents are defensive only when competitors Sue patent owners. A sued B, and then B sued A, causing mutual harm. If B releases its software in an open source license without extensive defensive termination terms, B may have no recourse and pay a high price for its open source code release. A also sued B for patent infringement while developing B software for free.
最后，Facebook 专利授权本身并不新鲜。该授权于 2013 年发布，自那时起，React.js 的受欢迎程度一直在增长。与许多开源许可证一样，行业忍受新许可证的意愿取决于其下发布的代码的质量。在 React.js
Finally, the Facebook patent license itself is not new. Since its release in 2013, the popularity of React.js has been growing ever since. Like many open source licenses, the industry's willingness to tolerate a new license depends on the quality of the code it releases. At React.js