Nor is FDL-licensed documentation removed, it is _moved_ to the non-free section. Which is part of Debian, desite whatever claims people will make.
Well, here we come back to names and definitions. [...]
[...] Debian GNU/Linux (main) is 100% free software, yes. But Debian as a whole is not, and not even Debian GNU/Linux as a whole. Since non-free is part of the Debian project.
As I said, here we come to the area of definitions. If you want to make your own, that's your right. But please do not contradict people in a way like their definition is wrong and your non-standard definition is the only way to truth.
The only part that is inventing definitions is the Debian project and its developers. If the GNU project would have had non-free software on their FTP site, people would grab their pitch forks. The same should hold for Debian any other project.
But Debian does not promise those will be free, but that it will create a 100% free operating system, which it really tries.
I'd like to know what `free' means in your vocubalary. You have switched between `free software' and `free', it seems to me that they are the say for you.
With free in this context I mean the (of course somewhat fuzzy) meaning of "free in the sense of free software".
Care to unfuzz it a bit? Are you saying that all digital content should be free to be modified?
We all make them, Debian on the other hand _explicitly_ allows non-free software in its distribution (that you, and other Debian developer, simply try to redefine what constitues the system just to justify the inclusion of non-free software is far worse than by error including non-free software).
Debian ships an operating system, which is supposed to be 100% free,
Once again, what is `free' here?
and does so quite good, with of course the obvious errors and problems, like sometime slipping some non-free program here or there, or like in the current case some large amount of non-free documentation).
What non-free documentation is this? All documents licensed under the GFDL are free documents.
If you think it is bad to aim at a 100% free operating system (and reaching it quite well) and offering additional support so that even people not able to live in a purist world can have to advantages of free-software, I can do nothing against that. I can only repeat that my priorities are to help people, especialy by enabling them to use free software.
I never, ever, claimed that it was a bad thing to aim at a 100% free software system (once again, I have no idea of what you mean by "free", so lets stick to something we can define). Debian on the other hand, does _not_ aim for such a system; it claims to, but it has on a continued basis for more then 10 years distributed non-free software, promoted its usage, and more or less said that it is OK to use non-free software.
None of this is OK by a long shot.