If it were really established that in software free means "Free" the way FSF defines it, then we would not have this 100+ messages discussion here arguing what is free, and in which context.
Maybe if would be easier if instead of "free" we started using more precise terms like Free(c)FSF, $Free, or name actual licenses, since each one goes under some assumptions.
My position depends on "free" being a broadly-applicable concept. If I'd said "Crockford's license is not DFSG-compatible" then the response would (quite rightly) have been "well, who cares, the DFSG is just Debian's set of arbitrary rules". The reason the line between free and non-free matters so much from a pragmatic perspective is that there is this consensus, the criteria for being included in Debian are (more-or-less) the same as those for getting free hosting on sourceforge, or for being able to use the OSI trademark, or...
Maybe if would be easier if instead of "free" we started using more precise terms like Free(c)FSF, $Free, or name actual licenses, since each one goes under some assumptions.