‘Will’ is the faculty by which a person decides on and initiates action. It’s our ability to make choices. You say we have the ability to make choices, but in your linked post you say that ability isn’t free. The question is: what do you mean by ‘free’ as it would reasonably apply to our ability to make choices?
Here are a couple of dictionary meanings of ‘free’ as it applies to our ability to make choices.
1 able to act or be done as one wishes; not under the control of another
2 a : not determined by anything beyond its own nature or being : choosing or capable of choosing for itself
Are those meanings of ‘free’ true of our ability to make choices or not? If you think they aren’t true then in what way are they not true? If you aren’t using those meanings or a similar meaning then what meaning of ‘free’ are you using?
'Will' is not the ability to make choices. It is the sum of all the desires we have. It is the underlying layer that motivates us to take action. Our 'nature', imposed on us by circumstance.
Keep in mind that when you say 'free will', the word 'free' is describing 'will'. In the definitions you provided it seems to be describing an agent and not the agent's 'will'.
So let's apply these definitions to 'free will':
1) Able to act or be done as one wishes
In this context, 'free will' simply means an agent is able to make choices, based upon its underlying desires (will). However, I don't see what value the word 'free' adds to this as it does not escape the fact that the agent has no hand in shaping or changing its 'will' and will act the only way it can based on that 'will'.
2) not under the control of another
If we define 'another' as 'another agent', then 'free will' is simply the ability an agent has to make choices based on its 'will', without being coerced or influences by other agents.
This may be a useful definition in many contexts (i.e. determining legally whether a defendant was coerced into taking action by another person) but it still this does not escape the fact that the agents 'will' is imposed in it by external factors it has no hand in and therefore acts the only way it can.
If we define 'another' as any external factor ... then 'free will' is simply not true as our 'will' is most certainly being influenced and coerced by external factors (i.e. circumstance, physics, external stimuli, etc).
3) not determined by anything beyond its own nature or being
'Free will' in this context becomes a circular definition. The agent acts as per its own nature. Well, duh. However, its nature is imposed on it by circumstance. An agent is subject to its own 'will' and it cannot determine what characteristics this 'will' is going to have.
4) choosing or capable of choosing for itself
Well, yeah but again, the agent is fully dependant on its underlying desires i.e. its 'will'
Adding the word 'free' at best describes situations in which an agent is not being coerced by another agent... but it always assumes the nature of the being, its will, is something that just is what it is.
Adding the word 'free' to exclude any influences beyond the nature of the agent is useful in many contexts. But it does not address the fact that one is completely at the mercy of their nature, their 'will', which was imposed on them in its entirety by circumstance.