I think it's even more common with companies using Go, because the output is often statically linked which changes the distribution requirements. The main difference between GPL and LGPL is that the the latter allows proprietary or non-free software to be linked without creating a derivative work.

> The main difference between GPL and LGPL is that the the latter allows proprietary or non-free software to be linked without creating a derivative work.

That's not strictly correct. LGPL has the requirement that it must be possible to replace the components that are under LGPL. So you could statically link them as long as you provide separate .o files. Of course that's a bit harder with Go.

But the concept of derivative work comes from copyright law, your choice of license doesn't affect whether something is a derived work or not. All that changes is the set of restrictions.

At least at the major companies I have worked at (n=3), GPL is to be avoided, if at all possible. LGPL, to a lesser extent. The general impression I received was that it was cancerous.

for many companies the fitness criterion is locked in proportionality to how much money it costs... for them LGPL is to be avoided at all costs.