>Said differently, the GPL doesn't try to apply itself to "derived works" because of some contralegal dictum they don't have a different creative origin. It merely says "you have two choices - license the things you link with OUR stuff under OUR terms, or you don't have the right to use our stuff".
The GPL doesn't restrict use, and says so. When people say that the GPL only lets you use the work under the author's terms, "use" means things that you'd need copyright licenses for. If you aren't creating something that is a derivative work according to the legal definition, you may not be using (in this sense) the author's work at all.
This also fails for interpretations like "you can link to GPL_ONLY symbols". This isn't directly written in the license, and any kernel contributor can deny it whenever they want.
Making a copy of a copyrighted work (duplication) is one of the fundamental actions that usually requires a license. It is difficult to find a way to take another action with the work without first duplicating it.
The GPL doesn't restrict use, and says so. When people say that the GPL only lets you use the work under the author's terms, "use" means things that you'd need copyright licenses for. If you aren't creating something that is a derivative work according to the legal definition, you may not be using (in this sense) the author's work at all.
This also fails for interpretations like "you can link to GPL_ONLY symbols". This isn't directly written in the license, and any kernel contributor can deny it whenever they want.