u-x417_at_aetey.se writes:

> On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 02:00:32PM -0500, Jan Harkes wrote:
>> It isn't more widely used because the library source is tied into the
>> Coda build infrastructure, does not come as a dynamically linked
>> library,
>
> Static linking has its value and use cases.

To be pedantic, the LGPL is not incompatible with static linking.  The
requirement is that the user is able to rebuild the library.  So if one
dleivers the .o files for the binary that aren't the LGPL binary, and a
build system to build the LGPL library and link to the rest to form a
new static executable, that's totally ok.   That's more or less what a
binary that dynlinks the LGPL library is, just (usually) easier.

I realize that now that dynamic linking is normal, nobody does this.