I think what's cute is the part where they point out why citing lawyer's (especially those employed by interested parties) opinions is not helpful because of the biases lawyers have to aggressively represent the interest of their parties, such that their opinions will generally reflect not the most likely correct view of the law but the view of the law most favorable to the interests of their clients -- and then, in the next paragraph, proceed to present their lawyers' opinion of the key and fundamental determining factor in the situation.
Which, of course -- as they've just telegraphed -- reflects SFConservancy's vested interests in a maximalist interpretation of what is a "derived work", since that is what maximizes the scope of works to which the necessity to adhere to a license (like the GPL) applies.
Which, of course -- as they've just telegraphed -- reflects SFConservancy's vested interests in a maximalist interpretation of what is a "derived work", since that is what maximizes the scope of works to which the necessity to adhere to a license (like the GPL) applies.