Follow-up Comment #2, task #14123 (project administration): the exception is permissible because they're not modifying the lgpl, they're adding to it. (plenty of GNU packages have similar "special exception"s for various things.) and what they're adding is extending permissions rather than subtracting, so it is ok.
the exception is about "independent" code (i.e., not the freepascal runtime), essentially allowing that code to be, yes, licensed arbitrarily, including nonfree. however, in this case, that is ok, for two reasons: 1) it is not a requirement for savannah hosting to be copyleft, only compatible with copyleft. for example, we allow public domain, which can be reused in proprietary code. that's ok. 2) this is a language runtime. it is normal, and only reasonable, for languages to support programs released under any licenses (freedom 0). that is how gcc has always been released. (they don't use the lgpl for their runtime, and their runtime is somewhat different anyway, but the end result is the same.) let me note that freepascal is in the free software directory (http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Free_Pascal_Compiler) and it wouldn't be if the fsf objected to its licensing. so, i think the submission is fine as far as licensing goes, based on what's presented here. (i have not looked at the tarball, but don't doubt the situation is as stated.) _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <http://savannah.gnu.org/task/?14123> _______________________________________________ Message sent via/by Savannah http://savannah.gnu.org/