The Free Software Foundation's definition of "free" goes beyond being free of charge. To be considered "free" in the FSF universe, a product would have to be released under GPL. Any licensing restrictions would make it "not free" even if it were otherwise given away.
It's a bit like saying I'll buy you a drink but the drink isn't free unless I provide you with the keys to the brewery.
Actually, it's more like: I'll make you a drink (program) but it isn't free unless I provide the list of ingredients (requirements, eg. libs, etc) and mixing instructions (program code).
It's up to the end user to provide the equipment for mixing it, (ie. compiler, etc).
You're implying you'd being giving away the compiler (brewery) as well to qualify as FSF free.
Now I'm getting thirsty.....
FSF approach is just plain stupid (IMHO).
IMHO, it isn't. Simply for the fact that if I have a piece of GPL software, (assuming compliance), that has stopped development and that I use, I know that if I require a bug fixed, feature added/removed, etc I can:
1) do it myself, (even if I have to learn the language - something I've done before);
2) get a friend to do it;
3) ask on the internet if there is someone willing to do it;
4) offer a donation/money to someone at DC to do it;
5) pay a programmer to do it;
6) etc, etc, etc.
A far cry from trying to get closed source, non-developed software modified or
having to create a program from scratch.
Give me a program that does what I want and I have the possibility to adapt to my needs
over closed-source any day.