Narrowing definitions in my own experience is the religious war in and of itself when they occur. Nothing past that actually matters when war breaks out, as everything thereafter is nothing but buckets of red herring.
I'm sure everyone's been in one of those conversations where you disagree with someone, but on further inspection, it turns out that what you both believe to be one thing, is actually two (or more). You then proceed to see things from the other perspective, and the conversation progresses from there, often with general agreement.
When it comes to "free", sigh... while I honestly believe that the world is a much better place for having Richard Stallman and FOSS and GPL and all that jazz, I am vehement in my opposition to their attempts to hijack the word free and restrict its meaning to suit their own purpose and nothing else. It's their unwillingness to admit any other sense of the word that I have a problem with.
As you've pointed out, there are so many different versions of "free" and "open" that it is tantamount to insanity to restrict (
) the words.
From the BSD perspective, the GPL isn't a "free" license, and vice-versa. The question is "what sense of free do we mean?"
Your choice of quote there nicely sums up the general position of far too many people in the GNU / FOSS / FSF world, and their unwillingness to compromise. As with you, Paul, I have software that I've purchased with source code, and I am "free" to modify the source however I want; I am not free to sell that unless it is merely a part of a larger product of which it constitutes only a part. (Typical component source code licensing.) So I'm free and I'm not free... Huh? WTF? Well, it seems pretty clear to me that "free is relatively ambiguous" unless we actually qualify what is being "freed" or what the object of it is. The typical radical FOSS interpretation is internally contradictory, so it's no wonder that we end up with so many wars over the thing in itself.