I think the implication is that "free" is being quoted from elsewhere and the author doesn't necessarily agree that it is without cost just because such cost is not denominated in dollars.
> It clearly means that, _other than paying taxes like everyone else in the free world_ I do not have to pay for it.
So, other than paying for it, I don’t have to pay for it?
Again, I find this sort of comment confusing.
> This is at the same level as finding a free penny on the street and going "No, but hang on, _someone_ paid to mint this penny so I am extremely confused as to why you would say this penny is free?!"
I think it’s closer to calling the food in the refrigerator at my house “free”. Or calling repairs at the auto shop “free” when the insurance company (who I pay) pays the shop.
Actually, the biggest problem is his confusion of free (as in price) with cost-less. Nothing is or can be cost-less, but that has little to do with the price charged for it.
The author has a point, and I think the "free as in freedom" comments are clearly missing that point. But I wouldn't say it is explained very clearly. It's framed as an attack on what appears to be a straw man. Finding a frame of reference to interpret the tirade is hard[1], and the point about the costs of work must be extracted from the rest.
[1] Hard to do well. It's pretty easy to make vague assumptions and proceed from there.
I get that. My point is that it's disingenuous to call it "free" in the headline when it's clearly not free in the way you would normally use the word in that context.
Yes, you're right, the word "free" does have specific connotations. Those include, but are not limited to:
- not subject to or constrained by engagements or obligations
- given or available without charge
So, is the product free, as in available without charge, as implied by the clause "available for free"? Yes.
Is it free, as in not subject to or constrained by engagements or obligations, something that is in no way implied by the content of the article? No.
Is your argument based on an excessively restrictive, ideologically motivated definition of the word "free" that does not fully represent how the word is used in practice?
reply