I think I'm with you on this in general > 1. If you’re not touching the core code, it’s not under the GPL. I try and get them to LGPL license the extension poi

I think I'm with you on this in general > 1. If you’re not touching the core code, it’s not under the GPL. I try and get them to LGPL license the extension points but they don’t see the benefit in trying to relicense it with all their contributors. I sense this comes down to a really poor definition of "linking" (is that the word in the text? Can't remember and don't have it to hand). It's not at all obvious for each software/language ecosystem which specific act constitutes "linking". > 2. For your second point, the issue is that the GPL is intentionally vague as a deterrent for corporate abuse. The issue becomes that, as a corporate user: I have to take the most pessimistic view to protect myself. If I switch my hat to someone non corporate, then I take the most optimistic view. In those cases, they often say to not take the pessimistic view because that’s not the spirit as they understand it. 100%, and this is my gripe against things like the BSL too. It's disingenuous because the aim of the license is to create risk and uncertainty through poor definitions and vagueness.