Language is language, it evolves through what people say, not through what scholars want them to say. You threw the term "Free software" to the crowd, it's their term now and they do what they want to it. This isn't a definition problem, it's a grammar usage problem, because both definitions of the word "free" are correct, and they both apply to all the Free software I've ever encountered (I've never seen paid Free software like Zarxrax claims).
Here's an example of how language works: In Portuguese, a traditionally formal way to refer to someone around the 19th century was "vossa mercê". After the terminology was popularized, it was shortened, and today all the dictionaries show "você" as an "informal pronoun for the 2nd person singular". There are a billion more examples in every language out there (except esperanto ^^). The use of "free software" as a general term is already widespread, and your mission to change it is actually even more futile than Dom Quichote's. Windmills are solid. You're charging clouds with a butterfly net. I'm not saying "if you cant beat them, join them". I'm saying that your definition of "Free software" as in "free speech" is jargon, and jargon is meant for people who know what they're talking about. All the other poor mortals will stick to the "free software" as in "free beer" definition, because to them it sounds more logical and natural.




