citation that the FSF believes that GPLd libraries when dynamically linked require the all the code to be GPLd? https://gitlab.com/gnu-clisp/clisp/blob/dd31309

citation that the FSF believes that GPLd libraries when dynamically linked require the all the code to be GPLd? https://gitlab.com/gnu-clisp/clisp/blob/dd313099db351c90431c1c90332192edce2bb5c9/doc/Why-CLISP-is-under-GPL https://gitlab.com/gnu-clisp/clisp/blob/dd313099db351c90431c... or something else? I agree that many create that API barrier (ex: ZFS on Linux). Those that argue that ZFS on Linux is legally problematic agree with the FSF's definition (which I would argue leads to the belief that APIs are copyrightable). Those that think ZFS on Linux is on a fine footing believe that APIs aren't copyrightable and one can create a shim to decouple your non GPLd code from GPL "libraries", especially if the coupling that ends up happening is never distributed as done by the end user.