[abigail95]

FSF has opinions but not case law - anyone else's opinion is as valid, there's no citation because no court has ruled that dynamic linking is or isn't a derivative work.

You have to construct your own view based on existing statute and vaguely related cases.

Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 593 U.S. 1 (2021) is not a pro-FSF opinion.

Whether linking (dynamic or not) is a derivative work is defined by things like incorporation, similarity, and creative expression.

I think the FSF view is unreasonably confident in its public opinions where the current law is that each potential infraction is going to be decided on a case by case basis. Read 17 USC 101 for yourself and square that with FSF/Stallman opinions.

There's too much nuance to have a stance about what happens when you link a program. "It depends" is the only thing you can say.

[fsckboy]

>Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 593 U.S. 1 (2021)

does not apply to the linking of GPLed code. Google copied just the application programming interfaces and then supplied their own code that they wrote themselves.

if you link to a GPL library you are including their copyrighted code, even if the API that GNU uses did not originate with them but came from POSIX or similar.

[immibis]

until you actually sue them, all you have are guesses, and you miss all shots you don't take