under most CyA lawyer regimes.
If I, as an upstream developer, license my library in GPL, it is exactly because I don't want any random developer to use my library and don't pass on the same freedom to end users. I intentionally want anyone using my library to be in the same freedom sphere (for lack of a better word).
If you think this as problematic/cancerous then it's a pity. This license was designed to retain freedom of software users.
This is a policy issue, not a legal one. Such a package would still be legal to distribute, but it would not meet the ASF policy that all ASF products be distributed under the ALv2.
The static vs dynamic aspect of LGPL is rather simple: the FSF has somewhat said that they will enforce C programs in the GNU project that is under LGPL based on the distinction of static vs dynamic. It can also be seen as the promoted "best practice".
The license however do not mention static and dynamic, so like any other copyright license it is up to the copyright author to decide when and how to protect their work. The license text of LGPLv2.1 calls the distinction a "work that uses the Library" vs distributing a "portion or derivative of it". LGPLv3 skips it all together and instead describe instead a "suitable shared library mechanism", which is very open to non-C languages. Basically any package distribution system with dependencies should work for LGPLv3 if the work is independently packaged.
Still, it's an uphill battle to fight with bosses that don't understand the licensing, and are gunshy of liability.
Not all industries are like that, and places like Google and Apple can afford to put years of developer time on re-implementing stuff for which they don't even know the outcome of. If you are dominant enough then delaying a product by months or years is not a big deal, and as seems common, companies like that has a reputation for throwing money and employees at the problem. I would guess that it is easier, quicker and "cheaper" for a Google project leader to get more people on a team rather than get a custom software license through the approval process.