Using "open and free" to mean "I actually want no restrictions at all" is also confusing and disingenuous, because, as you yourself point out, a lot of people don't mean that by those words.

The other thing, though, is that there's a difference between "I personally want to release my personal work under open, free, and unrestricted terms" and "I want to release my work into a system that allows people to access information in general under open, free, and unrestricted terms". You can't just look at the individual and say "Oh, well, the conditions you want to put on your content mean it's not open and free so you must not actually want openness and freedom". You have to look at the reality of the entire system. When bots are overloading sites, when information is gated behind paywalls, when junk is firehosed out to everyone on behalf of paid advertisers while actual websites are down on page 20 of the search results, the overall situation is not one of open and free information exchange, and it's naive to think that individuals simply dumping their content "openly and freely" into this environment is going to result in an open and free situation.

Asking people to just unilaterally disarm by imposing no restrictions, while other less noble actors continue to impose all sorts of restrictions, will not produce a result that is free of restrictions. In fact quite the opposite. In order to actually get a free and open world in the large, it's not sufficient for good actors to behave in a free and open manner. Bad actors also must be actively prevented from behaving in an unfree and closed manner. Until they are, one-sided "gifts" of free and open content by the good actors will just feed the misdeeds of the bad actors.