Quoting KatolaZ (katolaz@???):

> Apart from that, it is a copyleft licence, which guarantees to users
> and developers the same 4 freedoms which inspired GPLv1 and
> GPLv2. Just remember that, for a formal reason, GPLv2 and GPLv3 are
> link-incompatible. In fact, each of them specifies that the software
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> they cover (and any derivative) should be distributed under "the same
> licence".

FSF's frequently repeated notion that there's something of vital legal
importance about the act of linking is unsupported by copyright law.
(And yes, I'm saying that what the GPL FAQ says on this subject is
total rubbish. It's what FSF would _like_ to be the case.)

The coverage of any licence is determined by what a judge rules is or is
not a derivative work. 'Derivative work' is defined by caselaw, not by
FSF and not by Prof. Eben Moglen. If you want to understand what is and
is not a derivative work, it's necessary to read and understand the
leading caselaw -- such as (in the USA) Micro Star v. FormGen, CAI v.
Altai, and Gates Rubber v. Bando Chemical.

Links on: http://linuxmafia.com/kb/Licensing_and_Law/