HTML5 was supposed to be the be-all and end-all compatability standard that would render all browser differences irrelevant.

Then reality kicked in...

You must not ever have been to Chicago.

That is one of the silliest things I've read in quite some time. Unless you were going for Funny, in which case it's not. Thanks!

Linking GPL code is considered the same as copying in the source code. The library has to be released under the LGPL to be used by non-GPL source.

But you are correct about invoking canned binaries of GPL products or sending IPC messages to a GPL product, provided you're not using the GPL messaging libraries provided with the product, but rolling your own which happen to be compatible at the messaging layer. But I'm pretty sure your messaging code would have to be written in a different language as well in order to avoid any claims that you copied code from the GPL source.

The same is true of any "GPL compatible" license, not just BSD.

If GPL part "A" calls BSD part "B", then yes, that is true. But if BSD part "B" calls GPL part "A", it is in violation of the GPL license.

We have had a century to figure out the "unplugged" car interface, and it is simpler: dials for speed and tachometer, nothing else. Drivers train from an early age to drive with this sort of instrumentation.

The lack of safety with these HUD's is likely a consequence of inexperience both on the part of the HUD designers and the drivers. Once the interfaces themselves iterate a few times, and then drivers get experienced with them, I imagine they'll be much safer.

GPL-compatible means you are allowed to use software under those licenses *from* GPL'd code, not that the GPL copyleft requirement doesn't apply.

My assumption on reading the OP was that they didn't realize MPL and GPL are different animals.

"Flamebait" my ass. You punk ass little kids are so full of shit and know so little about licensing issues that it's absolutely laughable. You rant on about how Novell "owns" the POSIX APIs without knowing SHIT about how the POSIX APIs were developed in the midst of the *nix vendor wars and published as a STANDARD that all the vendors AGREED to implement.

You spew FUD and bullshit about how "interfaces aren't code", have no respect for the work that goes into a clean and well defined interface specification, and generally are so damned wet behind the ears that I think the whole INDUSTRY pissed on your collective heads.

There is no "depends on how he's using it." If it doesn't have an LGPL interface header, you MUST release the code under GPL terms to use it.

The POSIX APIs were agreed to by *all* of the *nix vendors and published as a standard, which includes a lot of the low-level interfaces used by Linux. They are not "owned" by Novell. Novell merely sold an *implementation* of the APIs.

A completely different kettle of fish than Oracle vs. Google.

If you're using GPL code, you have no choice but to release your code under the GPL as well.

What kind of retard claims interfaces aren't code?