One of the requirements of the LGPL v2.1 license is:
You must give prominent notice with each copy of the work that the Library is used in it and that the Library and its use are covered by this License. You must supply a copy of this License.
Since a lot of C projects use
glibc, it seems like they would need to include some attribution. In practice, I don't see this.
I guess that it is because the source code isn't specifically designed to use glibc so much as any implementation of libc.
So in source form, I believe the source code is just
work that uses the Library. Once compiled and linked against glibc (even dynamically), it should become a
derivative work of the Library.
However, when you build a program with
gcc on virtually any major Linux distribution, it links to
glibc explicitly -- I don't believe you could simply replace the .so with another libc and expect it to work.
Doesn't linking with glibc then make the resulting binary have attribution requirements for glibc? If not, why?