"Alternatively, a statically linked library is allowed if either source code or linkable object files are provided." But with no citation.
From reading on it, the consensus is that if your wrote your code such that it was possible to replace the LGPL part with a different (API compatible) library, and all you would need is a recompile then it's legal.
But if your code is written such that the LGPL parts can not be replaced then it's not.
the citation for that should be LGPL 2.1, section 6.a
"a) Accompany the work with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code for the Library including whatever changes were used in the work (which must be distributed under Sections 1 and 2 above); and, if the work is an executable linked with the Library, with the complete machine-readable "work that uses the Library", as object code and/or source code, so that the user can modify the Library and then relink to produce a modified executable containing the modified Library. (It is understood that the user who changes the contents of definitions files in the Library will not necessarily be able to recompile the application to use the modified definitions.)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Lesser_General_Public_Licen... says:
"Alternatively, a statically linked library is allowed if either source code or linkable object files are provided." But with no citation.
From reading on it, the consensus is that if your wrote your code such that it was possible to replace the LGPL part with a different (API compatible) library, and all you would need is a recompile then it's legal.
But if your code is written such that the LGPL parts can not be replaced then it's not.