LGPL 2.1 and static linking

[astronomer]

LGPL 2.1 is not very easy to interpret and it seems there is confusion in the programming community about whether linking statically to an LGPL library requires you to release your own source code. Some LGPL libraries include an extra clause to say that static linking is explicitly allowed without requiring the user to release their source code.

For a library that has an LGPL 2.1 license, does anyone know if the issue of static linking has ever been tested in court.

Below is an excerpt from copyleft.org tutorial and guide.
http://copyleft.org/guide/

Thus, a two-question test that will help indicate if a particular work is a “work that uses the library” under LGPLv2.1 is as follows:

1.
Is the source code of the new copyrighted work, I, a completely independent work that stands by itself, and includes no source code from L?
2.
When the source code is compiled, does it combine into a single work with L, either by static (compile-time) or dynamic (runtime) linking, to create a new binary work, L+I?

If the answers to both questions are “yes,” then I is most likely a “work that uses the library.”

 

[Essence_of_War]

When you say "tested in court" what do you actually mean?

The GPL is a License, not a Contract

The GPL is certainly not a source code annexation virus. Under copyright law, compelling the release of source code is not really an action that a court will take.