Wow--you're actually arguing that invariant sections are free? (I thought we were talking about the less blindingly obvious cases, like anti-DRM restrictions or choice of venue--too many parallel threads, perhaps.) This isn't a debated topic anymore; Debian agrees with me unambiguously (see GR2004-003). It's just next to impossible make a case, with a straight face, that a political essay attached to a technical manual that can't be modified and can't be removed is Free, and I have serious doubts about the priorities of anyone who's still trying.
Let's conclude we do not agree. I respect your opinion but I invite you to respect mine. Debian is not the world and it is not because Debian unambiguously decide something that everybody does. My definition of "free" is much the same as the one of the FSF. This is true that I do not consider important the fact of being able to modify political essay but I consider important the fact of being able to modify the documentation itself. I consider just as annoying the fact to be obliged to include political essay in documentation.
As a last remark, the term "free software" has been invented by the FSF. If Debian have another opinion; would it not be clearer if Debian use another word? something like Debian-free? so that people can clearly make the difference.
Olive