I am making use of a library licensed under LGPLv2 in a proprietarily licensed closed-source project. Specifically, I am dynamically linking my commercial C++ program to a C++ library that is itself distributed under LGPLv2.
Now as much as I understood, the dynamic linkage makes my software a "work that uses the library" and not a derivative work and thus frees me from having to distribute either the source or object code of my own software.
What isn't entirely clear to me is, if I have to include attribution to the library (in form of a copyright notice) and, more importantly, a copy of its license as part of my software distribution.
The LGPLv2 license seems to list these requirements under section 6:
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. If the work during execution displays copyright notices, you must include the copyright notice for the Library among them, as well as a reference directing the user to the copy of this License.
where it also lists the whole deal about offering source or object code of my own stuff. But being merely a "work that uses the library" through dynamic linking would seem to make section 6 not apply to my software, thus freeing me of any need for attribution and delivering a copy of the license. But being not too well-versed in the intricacies of software lawyering, I want to make sure I didn't miss or missinterpret anything there.
(It's not like I have any problem with acknowledging use of the library at all. But anything that doesn't have me include a ton of third party license files into my software distribution is welcome. I also know (or think to know) that I will also have to make the entire source code of the LPGL-licensed library available through an additional venue, which then would of course include the entire license information anyway.)