You must not ever have been to Chicago.
The patterning comes from young children not challenging their parents' misbehavior, for genetic fear of being left to starve on a hillside.
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?
Whoever owns or writes the code has copyright on it, from interfaces down to implementation. Anyone who has worked in the software industry for any length of time knows this. There have been dozens upon dozens of lawsuits over the years about people copying functions for spreadsheets, APIs for libraries, and a whole host of related issues. And it always came down in favour of the original author of the interfaces and implementations.
Think about it: What protection does your non-open-source software have if anyone can just use your API to implement an open source variant on the product? There is no way in hell that the entire software industry is going to give up that protection for their products and works.
Some in this thread are going on about the GPL and Linux header files. That only affects people writing drivers -- regular user space code is compiled against the libc interfaces, which are specifically LGPL to allow you to use them for writing products. Products like NVidia's closed-source drivers have always been a legal grey area just begging for a lawsuit to resolve once and for all whether it is permissible for them to write closed source against GPL interfaces. Personally I think if the courts had to make a decision on it, NVidia would lose for the same reasons the commercial vendors want to protect their works. NVidia does not get to dictate what constitutes "fair use" of an API, and neither does Google.
The owner of the API gets to determine what they're going to consider "fair use" and what they're going to consider to be an actionable abuse of their property.
I have never seen any reason nor excuse for the existence of Dalvik and the entire Google stack. Surely the "bright people" at Google could have written some sort of adapter layer for Swing as required for using the OpenJDK/GPL version of Java. But they didn't. Instead they're trying to lock people into the competing Android GUI stack, and are rightfully getting spanked for trying to break the "write once, run anywhere" philosophy of Java.
Google does evil all the time. Sure, Oracle does evil, too, but in this case, it is Google that is the greater of two evils.
You think an illegal immigrant is going to apply for a commercial driver's license as required by taxi companies?
Methinks you're confusing "immigrant" with "illegal immigrant." But don't feel too bad. There are millions of bigots like you out there, so you're not alone.