Yes. Because dynamic linking happens at runtime, the DLL/so file can be replaced by a downstream user. Static linking does not allow the user access to that "fr

Yes. Because dynamic linking happens at runtime, the DLL/so file can be replaced by a downstream user. Static linking does not allow the user access to that "freedom", so the whole binary becomes "infected" and must be open sourced. By enforcing a "user replaceable" boundary, the users' freedoms/rights to modify the open-source library are unaffected. Side note: how does that fit in with cryptographic signatures? GPL v3 was written to combat "Tivoization" (open source, but can't replace the binary). Does the LGPL v3 disallow such things with DLL/so files (use hashes to prevent replacing the FOSS lib)?