[dathinab]

Wrt. GPLv2 what counts as derived work is a mess.

LGPL mainly exists because statically linking a library into a binary (especially with link time optimizations enabled) will somewhat modify the binary code of the linked library in the way it is placed in which some lawyers use to argue that static linking is always a derived work.

So LGPL let's you rest in peace if you need static linking.

(I also have read arguments that even dynamic linking is derived work or that it's totally independent of the linking method but on how the linked code is used. All from lawyers, through not all from US lawyers. Also that was quite a while ago, some curt might have clarified such aspects.)

[mr_toad]

I think that RMS was fairly clear that he thought that linked code was a derived work as far as the GPL was concerned, and that’s why the LGPL was created.

[PeterisP]

A license and its drafters can't decide or change what is considered derived work - that's a core concept of copyright law where any nuances could be dependent on the jurisdiction but not on any particular licence.

What LGPL can do is to reassure people by providing specific permission to use the code in some resulting work, no matter if it turns out that it actually is derived work (in which case the licence would grant you the rights you need) or not, in which case you don't need the permission, but it doesn't hurt to have it.