I thought they had plans to deprecate the build flag in a later version, but can't find verification.

It will in any case not get any maintenance, so expect things to break with no recourse as new versions are released.

This similar to how on paper Firefox can still be compiled with GTK2, but it is not supported.

The thing I hated most about my automotive purchase was the nav. I'm not sure any built-in, eventual bit-rotten nav would be any better though.

On the one hand, we can't even get manufacturers of our phones to keep the software on their devices up to date past a couple years and somehow they're our last hope for your in-dash media player? I guess some people jump to a new lease every couple years, but I don't see the mobile model being the future of car ownership.

On the other hand, cars have mostly avoided the security disasters of other embedded devices so it might be fine. Unless of course, we make them into the eventual IoT device everyone wants them to be. I mean these software-controlled navs now need to both downloads updated maps and show you engine diagnostics. Doesn't this seem like a bad idea waiting to happen?

It sucks that only the low-quality models can escape these devices. Soon it'll be like Smart TVs where your choices are 480x600 or 4K Samsung SpywarePro.patchfix-m2015.

I'm afraid of this becoming the status quo. Everything is going to be a binary blob that you either download and run or you don't. It's really shortsighted to say "if Hollywood doesn't get DRM, you won't get Netflix". The market is there, it just wouldn't have been as easy for Hollywood to do so.

Now we have made it easy (and even standardized it!).

This is not an appropriate vector to 'fix' patent law. If you want to fix software patents, it should happen across the board and not by companies selectively weaponizing their projects and polluting the whole ecosystem in the veil of open source contributions.

The PATENTS file refers to all patents granted to you by Facebook in any project, not just in React (or any of the other files containing the PATENTS file). I think it's scoped a lot more broadly than you seem to imply.

It refers to all patents as potential triggers, not as potential consequences, and that still doesn't allow a patent license to nullify a separate copyright license. I think it's scoped a lot more narrowly than you are trying to imply. I've provided detailed reasoning for my position. Feel free to reciprocate.

Suing Facebook for an unrelated patent will make any software you use that may only work with ANY Facebook patented works useless. It doesn't discriminate to this project. They retain first strike however, so all the people saying this is great because patent litigation is bad, Facebook still has first-strike here.

Also, the copyright license isn't useful unless you have complete knowledge of Facebook's patent portfolio and are certain that without a patent grant (implicit/explicit) you can still use the software at all. This goes for Facebook as well as immutable, graphql etc.

> ... 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 ...

This amounts to a sprawling amount of individuals/orgs that can make you rewrite everything.

You're still assuming, contrary to all fact and common sense, that either the copyright license or the implicit patent license are affected in any way by what happens to the explicit patent license. I've explained elsewhere in this thread why that's not true. As long as you continue to base your argument on that assumption, without even acknowledging (let alone addressing) explanations to the contrary, that argument is a waste of everyone's time.

> You're still assuming, contrary to all fact and common sense, that either the copyright license or the implicit patent license are affected in any way by what happens to the explicit patent license.

Why would it be unreasonable to assume that the explicit clause in a contract exists to override the implicit clause? Isn't that kind of the point of explicitly enumerating cases? Where, elsewhere in this thread, do you explain this?

And your aggressive tone is unexpected.

Edit: Also, I didn't say the copyright grant was affected, but if you don't have a grant to use a patent that the software flexes.... ? Being concerned vs. assuming flowers seems safer in untested legal waters.

> Isn't that kind of the point of explicitly enumerating cases?

No. Explicit enumeration is also done to address things that are missing or ambiguous. If the intent is to replace or negate something that would otherwise be true, that's usually explicit too. "Superseding all other agreements, express or implied..." or some such.

> Where, elsewhere in this thread, do you explain this?

Mostly in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15257004 and its descendants. Other examples are not hard to find from my profile (two clicks).

> And your aggressive tone is unexpected.

When I'm faced with passive-aggressive behavior, such as persistently making untrue claims even after they've been challenged or even flat-out refuted, I get a bit active-aggressive.

> Being concerned vs. assuming flowers seems safer in untested legal waters.

Then you should apply that concern to all BSD-licensed software. Ditto for MIT license, and others that come with no explicit patent permission at all. All they have is the implicit permission necessary to support the copyright license (which is otherwise separate). The case for that is strong, but it's completely independent of the explicit license. Why not have both? Why take the risk of relying on one alone?