This is most likely very unpopular opinion but the GPL also relies on this overly broad interpretation which leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
In short, the GPL considers linking your program with it a derivative work, even if the GPL program is not distributed alongside yours. There's some limitations on it which I'm not really qualified to define, but those roughly boil down to that if you use it over a "generic interface" (network, or calling it as a process) then it doesn't count as a derivative work.
The massive problem with this is that it's a huge overreach. You are not distributing anything from their program (only the symbol names in the binary, which shouldn't be considered a meaningful amount of original work) but you are obliged to follow the terms of the licence to interoperate with a GPL-licenced program.
Granted, this is not a huge problem in practice because the GPL specifically is not used by abusive corporations much, but a similar issue happens with the enforcement of "terms of service"-s based on clickwrap "contracts" you never actually agreed to when you visit a website. Those also argue that not following their ToS also counts as either redistribution of their copyrighted work, or unauthorized access to their systems, both are huge overreaches.
In short, the GPL considers linking your program with it a derivative work, even if the GPL program is not distributed alongside yours. There's some limitations on it which I'm not really qualified to define, but those roughly boil down to that if you use it over a "generic interface" (network, or calling it as a process) then it doesn't count as a derivative work.
The massive problem with this is that it's a huge overreach. You are not distributing anything from their program (only the symbol names in the binary, which shouldn't be considered a meaningful amount of original work) but you are obliged to follow the terms of the licence to interoperate with a GPL-licenced program.
Granted, this is not a huge problem in practice because the GPL specifically is not used by abusive corporations much, but a similar issue happens with the enforcement of "terms of service"-s based on clickwrap "contracts" you never actually agreed to when you visit a website. Those also argue that not following their ToS also counts as either redistribution of their copyrighted work, or unauthorized access to their systems, both are huge overreaches.