This is really not a point of contention in philosophy. And that's I think why the OP didn't bother to define it as well. I suggest reading one of the philosophy encyclopedias online to get answers to the question of definition.
The first three sentences of the free will article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy say:
> “Free Will” is a philosophical term of art for a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives. Which sort is the free will sort is what all the fuss is about. (And what a fuss it has been: philosophers have debated this question for over two millennia, and just about every major philosopher has had something to say about it.)
The first three sections after that (1.1, 1.2, 1.3) are about different definitions of free will. Where did you get the idea that free will had a settled definition? Is there something else I should be reading?
It's not different definitions of free will unless you're using "definition" super broadly to mean anything that talks about the subject. At the end of the paragraph:
>If there is such a thing as free will, it has many dimensions. In what follows, I will sketch the freedom-conferring characteristics that have attracted most of the attention
