By your black/white fallacy logic, this means that we are all part of the
"open source movement", even Stallman, and that there are no "free software
advocates" yet, because nobody passes the arbitrary purity test your false
binary erects.
*You* keep on talking about black and white, about purity. *I* do not. Like I
wrote earlier "the word choice has nothing to do with "purity" and everything
to do with values".
most people not already acquainted with Stallman's arguments jump to the
conclusion that "free software" means "software that is free of charge". The
phrase is used in that way on the web *all the time*.
By your own logic, you should conclude that there is one single movement that
encompass "freeware" (dominant, because "most people" think "free software
means software that is free of charge"), "free software" and "open source".
Why don't you advocate for "freeware" then? Probably because the values
behind "freeware" (i.e., not paying) have little to do with the values of any
of the two other movements. That is precisely my point: values matter and
different names convey different values.
"Free code" and "Free code software", on the other hand, are not subject to
this ambiguity
The definition you gave (i.e., the code is gratis) is not what "free
software" is about. You even acknowledged it. How is "free code" not
ambiguous then?!
But sure, talking about "libre as in liberty", or my favourite "libre as in
library" are ways to get the meaning across.
"Libre as in liberty" gets the meaning across. "Libre as in library" does
not. The two words have different etymology:
"freedom, liberty, free will":
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=liberty
"collection of books": http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=library
