I'll cop to playing their game in jest, but more seriously: my definition does not exclude freedom. Nginx, for example, is free of charge. It is also permissively (one might say 'freely'!) licensed.
Stallman's, on the other hand, rather sadly attempts to pervert the discussion with such headscratchers as (say) "Visual Studio Express is nonfree." Well, no, it's quite free, I just downloaded it and they said the corporatey equivalent of "use in good health" (though this was, as is their sort of thing, buried in a EULA that was many many pages long). If they said "VS Express is not freely licensed," well, yeah, sure. Instead the FSF and similar unfortunates attempt to reverse the overload (underload?) of the word 'free' to mean only the meaning of 'free' that is politically appealing to them.
So, you're right, there's only one party committing etymological warfare in anger--though I'll cop to doing it in jest to get my point across. :)
You're completely missing the point. Or rather, the context. RMS/the FSF never tried to pervert the meaning of "free" to only mean "libre". It's just that in the context of their work, it makes little sense to use the other meaning of free (as in beer) - they acknowledge it exists, but it's rather irrelevant to them.
When you hear RMS using the word "free", it will mean "libre". So if RMS says something is "unfree", then it's glaringly obvious what he means, and in no way "etymological warfare".
You could just as well complain about the English language being ambiguous. It's quite unfortunate that free (as in Freedom) and free (as in beer) mean completely different things depending on the context, yet use the same word, but there's little we can do about that.
"Visual Studio Express is nonfree."
Well, no, it's quite free
Try developing a plugin for it. That's lack of freedom right there.
Here, let me define freedom for you:
the state of being free or at liberty rather
than in confinement or under physical restraint
Or here's another one:
exemption from external control, interference,
regulation
Both definitions do not apply to Visual Studio Express, no matter how much wishful thinking you're trying to push ;)
ALSO, VS Express is not free as in cost either, as long as it only works on Windows, you do have to buy Windows Licenses. It's basically a complementary product. With GCC on the other hand you don't give a crap what platform you're using or what platform you're targeting. Well, actually you do give a crap because that's an extra benefit. Depends on your perspective.
It's silly to say that XCode or Visual Studio Express are free, as in speech or beer. XCode is a fundamental component of the Mac OS X operating system, and though Apple doesn't put a price on it, it still figures into the cost of every Apple device, it just doesn't have a line item. Most of the components in a computer don't have line items, they all have a cost.
Visual Studio Express is the same basic deal. Microsoft doesn't give it away for free. They grant license to use it to anyone with a Windows license.
I only see one person here trying to redefine words to push their political viewpoint.