They shouldn't call it "free software" then, since it's not.
"Free" as in speech, not as in beer. The license terms are simple, straightforward, and made clear. I can't believe you're defending a company who committed theft of IP simply because you don't like the license the original authors used on their own code.
Seriously, if they just wanted to give it away for nothing, they could have released it under a BSD-style license, which would do exactly that.
By the definition of free (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/free)
“19. frank and open; unconstrained, unceremonious, or familiar.”
“23. that may be used by or is open to all”
“Free” can clearly what is commonly understood by it.