That's the same I'm saying. What you quoted just says that you can charge for distributing free software but you cannot force other holders of the software to distribute it asking for a charge.

You as a distributor can charge for what you distribute, that's it. And it has been done with a lot of free software, like with Linux. That's why basically Linus changed his License from explicitly free in money to only free as in freedom.

The thing is that free software allows to have a paywall if the distributor wants it. Which has a lot of sense. But does not allow to enforce it to other distributors.

Richard Stallman distributed GNU tools by a price. HIS distribution of GNU tools. At the same time you can also get the GNU tools from idk Debian mirrors (for free).

Free software isn't free as in money. That's the whole point. The adoption of Open Source by the "cool" companies (Google, Facebook, Apple, etc.) has tainted the original meaning of free software.