[zigzag312]

It doesn't really matter where exactly it is defined. There's effective definition of derivative works in place for GPL, even though it's definition is inherited.

> People twist things around because they want to use GPLed code without “paying” for it, but really at the end of the day it’s just an ordinary license agreement but instead of paying cash to use it you agree to give users the freedom to modify and/or redistribute the code.

You mean, instead of paying cash to use it, you pay with your property (your code). An old school barter exchange.

Source of confusion probably comes from overuse of the word "free" by people promoting GPL, which is like you said, just an ordinary license agreement.

[aleph_minus_one]

> You mean, instead of paying cash to use it, you pay with your property (your code). An old school barter exchange.

It's not that simple. If it was just about "my" code, this would indeed your claimed barter exchange. But often, say in industry, the code that you develop is combined with a lot of third party code and libraries for which you simply do not have the permission to put them under GPL.

[kelnos]

That's fine, and isn't the responsibility of the author of the GPL code you want to use. If you can comply with the terms of the license, great, you can use it. If you can't, you need to find something else whose license terms you can comply with. And you might have to pay money for it, but that's life.