Ironically, it's the FSF which discourages the use of "commercial" to mean "non-free":

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.en.html#Commer...

Obviosuly discourages because they're not equivalent and creates confusion. Stallman himself was selling copies of Emacs while releasing it under a Free license.

Some may be confused into thinking this reply is a correction. I don't mean to appear to rebut.

We know that the FSF is aware of the problem. The trouble can only be if we expect more success from repeating the same tactics for the next forty years. I would blame no one for expecting the FSF to stay the course and to achieve similar effects. I would also not blame them for choosing a different path for themselves and recommending so to others.