Facebook relicenses RocksDB under Apache 2 license

boulos · on July 16, 2017

Amusingly, the commit removes the LICENSE file which had the original LevelDb (from Google) copyright and LICENSE notice:

https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/commit/3c327ac2d0fd50bbd...

Did RocksDB finally remove every last piece of code from LevelDB?

Disclosure: I work at Google, but IANAL.

Steeeve · on July 16, 2017

The LevelDB copyright notice is still in place, so presumably no.

boulos · on July 16, 2017

(I meant that a bit rhetorically, sorry)

Definitely not :). In fact, all the LevelDB copyright notices now point to a dangling LICENSE file:

> // Use of this source code is governed by a BSD-style license that can be

> // found in the LICENSE file. See the AUTHORS file for names of contributors.

CONTRIBUTING (https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING...) presumably needs updating as well to cover the variations (including the GPLv2 addition that happened a few months ago apparently).

rogerb · on July 16, 2017

Nice to see Facebook taking this feedback to heart. Thanks!

johnnyfaehell · on July 16, 2017

I am curious why do you think they are taking it to heart instead of just complying. I think when something goes under the Apache Foundation it is no longer owned by Facebook but the Apache Foundation, so they may have been required to.

Edit: Nevermind I thought RocksDB was a project already given to ASF.

rurban · on July 16, 2017

React also on Monday. https://github.com/facebook/react/issues/10191

danabramov · on July 16, 2017

To be clear, as of now I have not heard of intentions to relicense React. I will try to follow up on Monday and see if I can get any official response out, but I wouldn’t count on this happening for React as well.

jchanimal · on July 16, 2017

This is the one I'm more interested in. Storage engines are more easily swappable.

crudbug · on July 16, 2017

The license was our top reason to go with Angular.

kgwxd · on July 16, 2017

I was very interested in React. When I saw it was by Facebook, my first instinct was that there must be something shady about it but I didn't write it off completely. Then the license issue came to light. Even if they change it now, it still has the stink of their tainted name all over it. I'm never touching it.

davix55 · on July 16, 2017

[flagged]

sctb · on July 16, 2017

Please comment civilly and substantively on HN or not at all.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

rdslw · on July 16, 2017

Does it mean that the whole megathread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14779881 didnt notice it, and toppost there is wrong? ;)

kronos29296 · on July 16, 2017

React hasn't been relicensed.(Maybe it will soon) This one is also fairly recent. I may be wrong but many FB projects seem to be using this license. It is just that React is popular enough to cause problems orgs using it.

fermigier · on July 16, 2017

New wording: "This source code is licensed under BOTH the GPLv2 (found in the LICENSE file in the root directory of this source tree. An additional grant COPYING file in the root directory) and Apache 2.0 License" (emphasis on "BOTH" mine).

-> IANAL, nor a native english speaker, but shouldn't it be "EITHER" instead of "BOTH" ?

richardwhiuk · on July 16, 2017

No it should be BOTH. You can use it under the terms of either, but it is licensed under both. If it was licensed under EITHER the obvious follow up is - Well which is it actually licensed under?

IANAL either but I am a native UK English speaker.

wjnc · on July 16, 2017

Is this the sought distinction?

"This source code is licensed [to you] under EITHER" whereas "Th[e] source is licensed under BOTH". The "this" hints at a genitive that's not there but still feels there. (Linguistics class was a long time ago btw.)