I don't see how you can call something free if the code is not available.
While I'd agree with the general tone of shades, I wouldn't call something
free or legally free even just because it was under the GNU GPL license. If I
were to say it were mostly free that's a more accurate statement. If it were
not useful without the non-free code its certainly less free than something
that is useful without the non-free pieces.
A few examples:
CodeWeavers CrossOver [GNU/]Linux: it's almost entirely free software except
for the UI, it's mostly free, and useful without the non-free parts
Ralink 802.11n drivers/ATI graphics drivers: it's partly free, but not in any
way useful
Ubuntu: It's mostly free software, and is useful without the non-free parts
It can be difficult to clearly talk about free software and I find myself
being unsure sometimes if I'm accurately educating users and potential
customers who are less aware of free software to the extent of ThinkPenguin's
product line up. That is to say almost all our products are 100% free
software friendly, but some (like laptops) are merely 100% free OS friendly
without the need for blobs for any major chipsets. And then I'd go into how
there are components within (like the BIOS) which are non-free and
potentially other small bits of code nobody is even thinking about. In any
event, it's as good as most people can expect to get right now give or take
particular priorities (freedom-wise and otherwise).
