[eps]

LGPL basically means that if I modify the libary code, I should open source the changes, but I can build derived products (in GPL sense) from an unchanged lib as much as I want. This static vs dynamic linking debate is a silly pendantry, enforcing which doesn't contribute anything to the GNU's goals or vision. It's really disappointing to see people time on this. If you want to pursue justice - go after the GPL violations. Making one to re-link a binary to force a compliance is a misplaced effort and essentially a waste of everyone's time.

[to3m]

Requiring the programmers to keep their changes to the library open is one aspect of keeping the software free; requiring that the end user be able to replace the library with a different one is another, and one that the FSF seems keen on maintaining. Personally, I agree that wider-spread usage of the libraries would be better than the current rather doctrinaire stance - but I assume the FSF sees the LGPL's current emphasis on end-user freedom as contributing more to the GNU goals than wider-spread usage of the libraries would.

In the meantime, there's always the MIT licence.