Well, "(hard)linking" doesn't really exist in Java. It means that you include the dll (dynmaic lib) into your exe, by telling the compiler to do so.
I've seen it twice from confirmed sources @ gnu that - specifically for java - the LGPL does NOT mean "linking" it means something more general that basically means all java automatically is linking whether you like it or not UNLESS you use JET and do a native-code compile.
My advice? If you want to use LGPL tech, email the author and get him to state his personal intent w.r.t the LGPL applicability, and then *print the email*. This does have legal validity should someone try to bite you in the future; although the extent to which it would protect you varies according to circumstances. Most authors whom I've emailed have clearly intended not to be mean draconian gits, and are very nice about the whole thing.
Then again, the official channels (IIRC a particular contact address for license queries?) for answering GPL questions *allegedly* have given self-contradictory advice in the past before, and maybe I've seen a mistake. Twice.
The whole thing is utterly flipping ridiculous IMNSHO (the license doesn't mean what it says [hmm; bet they're glad it's never come to court, then], simply because the people writing it were too incompetent to think about more than one language when writing it) and it was the last straw in my realising that the last thing any developer should do is release under a *GPL license - I release everything under BSD, MIT, or similar; anything but the GPL's.
FWIW I'm pretty sure that LGPL has a valid legal literal interpretation when applied to java that basically means you can screw the intent of the licensor. Idiots. Plain idiots.