Since our RTL is under a slightly modified LGPL (allows static linking as long as you make the modifications to the FPC-RTL-licensed code available), license-wise I don't think there is any problem for you to reuse things. If there is, we could dual-license it under the regular LGPL as well I suppose (the main reason for the static linking exception is that some OS'es, like Dos, simply do not support dynamic linking, and support for creating dynamic libraries was not available for all OS'es in our compiler from the start either).
BTW, standard LGPL allows static linking as well. You just have to distribute object files of the non-free parts, so users can relink. But I suppose for some reason that's not desired?
No. I think we simply didn't think of that, and the GNU site didn't spell it out either. It is a good point for the license FAQ though.
The above is not true, there are more requirements of a statically linked LGPL than the above. But even if that were the only requirement, it is a fairly onerous one to put on developers. The LGPL also requires copyright notices, as well as distribution of the RTS source.
Surely the intention of the compiler is to allow people to compile their applications and distribute them as they choose without restrictions simply due to using the RTS?
Requiring everyone using GPC with a non-free program to ship an executable as well as a separate object module that could be linked with a separately compiled RTS seems entirely pointless.
There is very good reasons for static linking the RTS to not bring in any part of the GPL or LGPL license.
At least in my opinion, as both a minor contributor and a commercial developer. Peter.