Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, you're right, the word "free" does have specific connotations. Those include, but are not limited to: - not subject to or constrained by engagements or obligations - given or available without charge So, is the product free, as in available without charge, as implied by the clause "available for free"? Yes. Is it free, as in not subject to or constrained by engagements or obligations, something that is in no way…
not subject to or constrained by engagements or obligations Free software very much is subject to engagements and obligations, these being the terms of the respective license. Is your argument based on an excessively restrictive, ideologically motivated definition of the word "free" that does not fully represent how the word is used in practice? It's funny, because by your own statement, "open source" is also an exce…
Why would you say that?
I actually explicitly believe that the FSF and OSI have coopted the term "free" in order to bend it to their own definition, while in fact espousing a position that explicitly advocates for licenses that restrict user freedom in very specific ways.
They, of course, happen to restrict freedom in a way that many folks like. But it's undeniable that, from the perspective of the individual user of software, BSD-licensed open source (for example) affords greater individual freedoms than that provided by GPL-licensed software, specifically because the latter is "subject to or constrained by engagements or obligations".