The title would be perfect for an article arguing for a non-copyleft license instead of the LGPL. Some who create projects mistakenly believe that if they use the LGPL or some other copyleft license that most of the problems with the GPL go away. I think Firefox has lost some developers to Chromium because of Chromium's simpler license. The EPL is also frustrating to some who would like to use Clojure (Scala is under a simpler license). I tried writing such an article: https://gist.github.com/benatkin/98e28b329842f021e6d3
Good points in this article. Note as well that the LGPL requires you to permit reverse-engineering of your proprietary code. There are good reasons for this, but it's unrealistic in a lot of organizations.
A lot of developers (and a lot of lawyers!) rely on the rule of thumb that you're fine under the LGPL as you don't modify and don't statically link. That's a fine rule of thumb, but that's all it is.
It took some time for me wrap my brain the restrictions around the EPL while I was picking up clojure, but I don't understand how EPL would be frustrating to other developers or businesses. Could you elaborate?
As I understand it, as long as you use a library according to its stated API, you can do whatever you want with it and license the entire product under any license you choose. [1]
