You mean "3. Object Code Incorporating Material from Library Header Files."? That section 3? I think they're using a bit more than just header files. Section 4 "Combined Works" is the one that applies here.
Also even if section 3 did apply they'd need to follow 3.b as well as 3.a and include the full text of both the GPL and the LGPL.
Technically it can be statically linked, but then you would need to provide artifacts (for example, object files for the non-LGPL modules) enabling the end user to "recombine or relink" the program with a modified version of the LGPL code.
Dynamic linking is usually simpler, though. And the DRM issues apply either way.
Section 6 of the GPLv3, which the LGPLv3 includes by reference as one of the required distribution terms in paragraph 4.d.0:
Convey the Minimal Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, and the Corresponding Application Code in a form suitable for, and under terms that permit, the user to recombine or relink the Application with a modified version of the Linked Version to produce a modified Combined Work, in the manner specified by section 6 of the GNU GPL for conveying Corresponding Source.
(emphasis added) There is the alternative of following 4.d.1 instead, but that's only if the application links against a shared library already present on the user's computer system—it couldn't be distributed with the program.
GPLv3 section six offers five alternative methods of satisfying the obligation to provide source code. The first (6.a) applies only to physical distribution and must include source code with the physical media. The second (6.b) also requires physical distribution plus a written offer to provide the source code to anyone possessing the object code. The third (6.c) is the one I mentioned that applies only "occasionally and noncommercially" for those who received a written offer themselves under the previous clause. The fourth option (6.d) allows for the source to be provided through a network server:
If the place to copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party) that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source. Regardless of what server hosts the Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements.
The fifth and final alternative (6.e) pertains to object code provided through P2P distribution, with the same requirements as the fourth method for the source code.
The GPL in most cases only requires that derivative work must also be shipped with the same license. The source code from providers doesn't have to be distributed by unity, it has to be distributed by the provider.
This is incorrect. The distributor of derivative works in binary form is responsible for providing the source code. They can refer to a server operated by a third party, but if that third party stops providing the source code the distributor remains obligated to ensure that it is still available. The only exception is for binaries which were originally received with a written offer of source code, where the offer can be passed on as-is, but that only applies for "occasional and non-commercial" distribution which wouldn't work here.
Sure, they don't rule the world. They only have the power to ban you (either the company per se or its individual owners, officers, and/or employees) from ever again doing any business in the EU. Which naturally includes business with any individuals or companies either based in the EU (as a seller or a buyer) or wanting to do business in the EU. Or from traveling to the EU, whether for business or personal reasons. Little things like that. Nothing too inconvenient. (/s)
They haven't taken things quite that far—yet. But they could. It's dangerous to assume that you can ignore them without consequences just because your company doesn't currently depend on revenue from EU customers. The world is more interconnected than that, and the consequences may not be limited to your company.
Geoblocking in such cases would not be sufficient. For one thing your geo-IP database will never be perfectly accurate, even without considering that "data subjects who are in the Union" can connect to your site via proxies or VPNs with non-EU IP addresses. For another you still need to respond to GDPR requests e.g. to remove data collected on a data subject currently residing in the EU, even if the data was collected while they were outside the EU, and you can't do that if you're blocking their access to the site. For a newspaper in particular the same would apply to any EU data subject they happened to report on, whether they had previously visited the site or not.
They never should have made opt-in an option in the first place. All the legitimate reasons to store data are already permitted without asking permission (required for the site to function, or storing data the user specifically asked the site to store such as settings). All that's left is things no one would reasonably choose to consent to if they fully understood the question, so they should have just legislated that the answer is always "no". That plus a bit more skepticism about what sites really "need" to perform their function properly. (As that function is understood by the user—advertising is not a primary function of most sites, or desired by their users, so "needed for advertising to work" does not make a cookie "functional" in nature. Likewise for "we need this ad revenue to offer the site for free"; you could use that line to justify any kind of monetization of private user data.)
In what sense do you think this isn't following the email standard? The plus sign is a valid character in the local part, and the standard doesn't say how it should be interpreted (it could be a significant part of the name; it's not proper to strip it out) or preclude multiple addresses from delivering to the same mailbox.
Unfortunately the feature is too well-known, and the mapping from the tagged address to the plain address is too transparent. Spammers will just remove the label. You need either a custom domain so you can use a different separator ('+' is the default but you can generally choose something else for your own server) or a way to generate random, opaque temporary addresses.
If you want to talk about non-compliant address handing, aside from not accepting valid addresses, the one that always bothers me is sites that capitalize or lowercase the local part of the address. Domain names are not case-sensitive, but the local part is. Changing the case could result in non-delivery or delivery to the wrong mailbox. Most servers are case-insensitive but senders shouldn't assume that is always true.
CVS and E*Trade both refused to accept my fairly standard [email protected] address during initial registration, but had no issue changing to that address once the account was created. It would be nice if their internal teams communicated a bit better.
The full email address syntax described in the RFC cannot be precisely matched with a mere regular expression due to the support for nested comments. The need to track arbitrarily deep nesting state makes it a non-regular language.
If you remove the comments first the remainder can be parsed with a very complex regex, but it will be about a kilobyte long.
I'd settle for just the limits, personally.
The part that makes me the most paranoid is the outbound data. They set every VM up with a 5 Gbps symmetric link, which is cool and all, but then you get charged based on how much data you send. When everything's working properly that's not an issue as the data size is predictable, but if something goes wrong you could end up with a huge bill before you even find out about the problem. My solution, for my own peace of mind, was to configure traffic shaping inside the VM to throttle the uplink to a more manageable speed and then set alarms which will automatically shut down the instance after observing sustained high traffic, either short-term or long-term. That's still reliant on correct configuration, however, and consumes a decent chunk of the free-tier alarms. I'd prefer to be able to set hard spending limits for specific services like CPU time and network traffic and not have to worry about accidentally running up a bill.