Uhm, are you sure that makes sense?
If a developer on our side tells you "we think we do this and that, but I am not a lawyer", what good is that for the lawyer on your side? On the other hand, if there is no lawyer on your (or your customers side), we can tell you whatever we want?
What I'm trying to say is that these kind of questions are best left to legal experts. If you want a legally sound statement, you need to contact Red Hats legal department, probably easiest through some sales contact.
And here is the non-binding statement from me (IANAL): The libraries we distribute with Seam are licensed under whatever license we received when we obtained them. All of these licenses, included the LGPL under which Seam code is licensed, permit the usage of the unmodified binary you received in any environment (these are distribution licenses, not usage licenses). If you make modifications to the source code you received, and the original code has been under LGPL (or a license with similar clauses), you need to distribute your modification under the LGPL to whoever you distribute a binary to (so these receivers also have the right to make modifications). Some libraries we distribute are licensed without this clause, modifications to their source code can be kept closed.
That's good enough for my peace of mind, a good faith effort. At least I've confirmed you're not knowingly or intentionally (or recklessly) inserting commerical libraries. Common sense told me that's what you do, but I couldn't find it in writing.