Because of limitation of English language, no single word to represent intent of 'free'.
Often you need to explain that free as 'free as in free speech', which probably confuses people more.
Often you need to explain that free as 'free as in free speech', which probably confuses people more.
2. Even if there was substance to it, it's not relevant to this. People have no difficulty understanding what "Free" means when you explain what you mean. Just as in the above sentence you experienced no confusion at all over whether I used "that" in the indicative or grammatical sense.
The issue is: marketing. Any word that has a precise technical meaning will become non-technical as marketers latch onto the word. Because if its technical, precise, and useful... then marketers will "stretch" the meaning of the word beyond its true definition.
In many cases, the word "free" itself is overloaded. Chosen by the "Free Software" movement because of its ambiguity. Free from cost, freedom to use, freedom of choice... etc. etc.
Stallman wants "free" to mean everything he wants it to mean, without any of the meanings otherwise attached to the word. Its an issue of branding and I've never really liked this aspect of the FSF / Stallman's philosophy.
Ultimately, Stallman wants to distinguish between the "Open Source" community with his "Free Software" philosophy. There's plenty of more appropriate words, such as "Copyleft" software, available at his disposal.
Overloading the "Free Software" word and/or branding is part of the strategy. Ambiguity is good. It allows the people who hear the word to imagine the best possibilities, as opposed to focusing on the technical details or legalize.
I'm sure there are other single words that would convey the same message.
"And the soldiers liberate them, laying mines along their roads." ~Megadeth