I have a question very similar to that asked in Free $\mathbb{Z}$-modules, but is not answered in that thread. This thread cleared up some of my confusion, but still leaves me with the question:
Why are free abelian groups equivalent to free $\mathbb{Z}$-modules rather than having a more general definition where we can specify the ring? Or am I incorrect in this interpretation?
Some more info:
In my study of homology theory, I work with tons of free modules where the scalars come from $\mathbb{Z}/p$. However, when I was first learning homology theory, the fundamental object of study was referred to as a free abelian group by every text I could find (because we were working with free $\mathbb{Z}$-modules). This has led to a lot of confusion on my part about how to refer to free $\mathbb{Z}/p$-modules, since I've want to keep calling them free abelian groups generated by a set $S$, but now with coefficients in $\mathbb{Z}/p$. I interpret the discussion in the question I link above to suggest that this is wrong and I should not use the term "free abelian group" to refer to a free $\mathbb{Z}/p$-module. Is this the case? If so, is there an analogous way to refer to a free $\mathbb{Z}/p$-module that emphasizes "abelian group" in the same way that we can refer to a free $\mathbb{Z}$-module as a free abelian group? Or should I just stick with using "free $\mathbb{Z}/p$-module"?