[trane_project]

The whole thing about how GPL propagates to unrelated works that happen to use a GPL licensed software is a misunderstanding. One that the FSF foundation is happy to propagate, but not one that would hold in court.

The concept of derived work in copyright law has nothing to do with how the binaries are linked together nor is an entire work derived from a GPL library just because they happen to call it at one point. Lawyers look at this very differently.

See https://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6366

[dahdum]

I don’t see definitive statements in that article. It’s a lawyer stating opinion, using qualifiers like “in most cases” and “I would argue”. Most concerning is:

> This is a complex topic that courts and lawyers disagree on

I would argue, in most cases, the benefits aren’t worth the risk, nor the legal fees spent to ascertain and manage that risk.