So, until all (or some large quantity) of software produced by an organization is open source, any software produced by an organization that is open source should not be considered worthwhile efforts?
Not what I said at all. I'm just saying they shouldn't get more credit for a non-release than for a release. Apparently the HN attitude is:
* Release lots of software with a conditional patent grant: awful.
* Release lots of software with no grant (e.g. BSD): OK.
* Release very little software, and that under the no-grant license (e.g. MS): you rock.
Sorry, but that's completely f-ing backward. It's literally impossible to get to there from open-source principles, so what what principles are people starting from?
Though untested, many think the BSD and similar licenses provide an implicit grant that can't be strategically revoked. Future case law to the contrary would make a lot of open software unusable or at least a legal minefield. Providing an explicit grant with explicit conditions of termination makes it easy for Facebook to selectively restrict use of anything that might be under patent in ANY of their projects. At best it's not in the spirit of FOSS and at worst it asymmetrically weaponizes open licenses.
It's true that, practically, most companies won't ever have to worry about Facebook infringing their patents, but I think it's garbage on principle to reserve first-strike litigation while making it impossible for someone else to do the same and use software you've made available under a supposedly permissive license.
