[prepend]

“Free” means something. If you want to stop people distributing your software through a site that has ads, then it’s not “free.”

“Open source” means something too. The control people have is in using shared definitions.

Language is malleable, so if enough people use a word incorrectly it changes the definition. But those people get to be called wrong for years until enough people misuse it to make it right.

[sangnoir]

You're redefining big-F "Free" software as defined by the GPL, which aims to give users freedom to change their software - and is indifferent to; at best, restricts at the worst, the rights of intermediate software developers who inject themselves between Free software and users by choosing to redistribute or allow their software to be infected by the GPL bits.

IMO, MIT & BSD give downstream developers more rights and are indifferent to end-users. GPL gives users more rights, and indifferent to downstream developers.

[spencerflem]

You have one definition, of "free" but its not the only reasonable one.

Is MIT not free because it requires attribution? Is no code free because it cannot be used in ways that break the law?

Just because there are some restrictions does not make it completely unfree, and its fair for people to want to use what is the most natural word to refer to thing that are free enough for them. "OSI-approved" works if you want to be precise but one org does not have the right to dictate the use of a word as common as "open".

[prepend]

I don’t think I’ve said my definition of “free,” but restricting who can distribute my software seems pretty non-free to me.

I don’t think there’s a true, single definition, but I think maybe the closest to that would be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition

[Brian_K_White]

There is no valid freedom to abuse. It's like complaining that you're not free to enslave. It's not a valid argument.