Josselin Mouette wrote:
Debian users and maintainers agree with such limitations because they do not need this freedom in most cases (the freedom to include GPL code into the proprietary code and to distribute binary result).THIS - IS - NOT - A - LIMITATION.
Your upper case was so convincing, that I go to www.dict.org to check once more, what is limitation.
You can do *whatever you want* with GPL'ed code, technically speaking. Redistributing a modified version as a proprietary product, but there is no restriction on producing this version. Only a restriction on *how* you distribute it.
So, I do not get your point, is there a *limitation* on redistributing a modified version as a proprietary product? Or you can do *whatever you want*? I do not think there could be answer "yes" to both questions.
The same thing is with FDL. If Debian users and maintainers do not need the freedom to remove political statements in most casesIn most cases? So if we need a freedom only sometimes, we don't really need to be strict about it.
I inserted "in most cases" to be consistent with my statement about GPL. GPL can't be perfectly applicable to software in some rare cases. An example is Guile license. I assume there could be cases[1], where FDL can not be perfectly applicable to the documentation.
[1] - none of them I read on debian-legal > Oh, but we already agree with such limitations. In the non-free section. That's tricky ;) -- Best regards, Sergey Spiridonov