Could you please provide supporting evidence for your view that is a consensus? Where is the documentation explaining your “static link” proposal and why it’s been endorsed by lawyers as a permitted approach? What was the response from the GPL team when they were asked to comment on this circumvention of their license? Will they be patching GPLv3 to correct it?
Consensus is what is admitted by most actors, specially including the main interested actor: The FSF and the GNU project. And I do not remember reading any communication of the FSF or the GNU project saying it is forbidden.
Currently the license text is very explicit about what you can do and not do if you link statically.
> 0) Convey the Minimal Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, and the Corresponding Application Code in a form suitable for, and under terms that permit, the user to recombine or relink the Application with a modified version of the Linked Version to produce a modified Combined Work, in the manner specified by section 6 of the GNU GPL for conveying Corresponding Source.
Which means: You have to provide a way for your user to recompile statically their application with a new version of the library. Meaning, you have to provide a tarball with your object.o files if someone ask for it.
It is even documented explicitly by the FSF:
https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/3127...
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#LGPLStaticVsDyn...
