I just wrote that because it's how I feel, and it's free software. I answer to no god but myself.
If you go to a flight engineer and say that a plane has a high risk of stalling, first thing the engineer thinks would be a problem in the aerodynamics, not some engine problem, which would not make sense according to the dictionary definition: Stalling: Stop running, typically because of an overload on the engine. (Random example from the top of my head and my example can theoretically be very wrong, but I hope my point is clear).
It also helps to look at the more correct terms to use when talking about a different kind of "free" [2].
It doesn't actually matter, but even if we dig the actual root of the word, and its usage, we see that the "libre" meaning precedes the "kostenlos" (without monetary cost). It meant "noble, free person" in the proto-Germanic [3]. If you say that someone is a free person, no sane person would think that he/she can be owned for free. So the phrase "free software" is a very unsuitable substitute for "free to redistribute" or "free to use", even when you ignore the industry jargon. License to use it is free, not the software.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software , https://fsfe.org/freesoftware/basics/summary.en.html , https://www.fsf.org/about/what-is-free-software , https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software_(disambiguation)
I just realized you have a very old hackernews account. You must've been one of the first people to register.