> This would only apply if they were distributing the GPL licensed code alongside their own code.
As far as I understand the FSF's interpretation of their license, that's not true. Even if you only dynamically link to GPL-licensed code, you create a combined work which has to be licensed, as a whole, under the GPL.
I don't believe that this extends to calling an external program via its CLI, but that's not what the code in question seems to be doing.
(This is not an endorsement, but merely my understanding on how the GPL is supposed to work.)
As far as I understand the FSF's interpretation of their license, that's not true. Even if you only dynamically link to GPL-licensed code, you create a combined work which has to be licensed, as a whole, under the GPL.
I don't believe that this extends to calling an external program via its CLI, but that's not what the code in question seems to be doing.
(This is not an endorsement, but merely my understanding on how the GPL is supposed to work.)