So you are saying Free-to-play means what it does, because we allow it to be so (I assume by supporting these kind of games or not demanding change). This would also imply that we agree with your idea of what 'Free-to-play' should mean.
Honestly, in my perspective, you are just arguing semantics. As it's been said, Free-to-play game models range all over the place, and many don't even allow non-paying players to even experience the full content. I have no problem with this, and I don't feel like Spiral Knights is committing fraud or advertising their game falsely. If you don't agree with how free-to-play is defined, so be it. However, the industry has a standard and will continue to run with it.
You can create an account for free, you can log in at any time without having to pay, and you can play (and access the full game content) without paying - paying will just allow to you play longer or at any time you may want. To me, this is free-to-play, and I feel the current definition of free-to-play is NOT wrong.
You guys need to go back and reread my latest statement. Because you clearly didn't read it throughly the first time or else you would have discovered what I actually said.