You mean in court?
Of course, not! That's the point of a chilling strategy, you know?
Of course, not! That's the point of a chilling strategy, you know?
Also, you do have rather established legal definitions of 'collective' and 'derivative works'. See, for example, Laurence Rosen: "Open Source Licensing". Then, why does the GPL3 not use them? Instead, is uses 'work based on' IIRC. So, why's that?
In my opinion, the resulting (legal) uncertainty is intentional.
Another reason: If the interpretation of the FSF is true, all works that ever linked dynamically against a Microsoft library would be derivative works of said library. Does it makes sense that companies like Adobe try to build a business on such shaky legal grounds?
For they give away their stuff with no strings attached! Oh, wait...
The only thing you can't do with code derived from GPL'ed code is attaching strings to it. Your clients should celebrate it.