[@Zik] Your claims make zero sense if it were true the LGPLvN licenses would have been depreciated… they have not so the wording of the GPLv3 being the latest stands and redefinitions OUTSIDE the GPLv3 or later documents does NOT change the license documents… if they want to change the documents they should issue newer GPLv4 or above that redefines it to mean one can have GPL code incorporated into proprietary closed source without attribution or copy of original license for there to no longer be theft. They are STILL abusing GPL code and not giving proper attribution or including a copy of the original license document WHICH IS REQUIRED. You are currently making assertions without citing online references to backup your alleged redefinition of GPL licensing that totally defeats the purpose of the GPLvN licenses and negate the need for LGPLvN license and of course you are ignoring the lack of accreditation and providing copies of the relevant license files. The binaries being discussed were generated under GPLv3 License not any fictional GPLv4 license that as far as I know has not even been released as a draft yet! You are trying to turn GPL licensed works into public domain works which is never the intent of FSF no matter how you twist things. Many GPL source contributors will simply refuse to contribute to GPLv4 or later projects under the lax terms you espouse as it ensures no availability of the source to modify or reuse.
2. Official FSF Position: The Free Software Foundation (the creators of the GPL) explicitly states in their official licensing FAQ that running a standalone GPL executable as a separate system process via a command-line invocation does not turn the invoking proprietary program into a combined or derivative work. The communication happens at the OS level (arguments/pipes), which is legally compliant. If it were otherwise, proprietary operating systems (like Windows or macOS) wouldn’t be allowed to execute GPL tools at all.
If that is all that is going on and the end user provides the FFMPEG.EXE or FFPROBE.EXE that would be true but where the compiled GPLv2 or 3 binaries are combined into a single work and are supplied by the vendor in a single installer or a distributed installer and the end user is not sourcing the the binaries then it is an illegal distribution of GPLv2 or 3 software in an illegal closed source product. They HAVE to include the GPLv3 license in their license documentation and cannot restrict the FFMPEG.EXE binary usage in their license by not differentiating the FREE software from their closed source do not reverse engineer license. The passage you write does not deal with combined works where the binaries are distributed as part of the combined work by the closed source devloper/vendor… again if it were the way you are trying to twist things to mean there would be no need for LGPLvN licensing.
Why do you want to protect predominantly Chinese IP thieves taking GPLv3 or even non-free and undistributed and never giving attribution to the original developers and rights owners and never providing license files where one exists and always ignoring internation copyright treaties.
Also before you rant any more give URLs to back up your claims… my claims come from the COPYING documents themselves not some perverted and twisted re-write of someone elses opinions that if taken YOUR way invalidates the documents and makes GPL software public domain… anyone can claim it as their own plagiarists win!