In all this discussion I seem to agree with some things; others, I think it's just a waste of time.
For example, discussing freedom. In general, I'd bet no two persons have the same definition of freedom. Even if we have 2 GPL-persons they'd surely at some point diverge. It's just a matter of what is freedom to you. Personally, I find the BSD 'total freedom' paradigm more attractive and it adjusts to my personal feelings about what freedom should be. As Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither". But that's me, and whatever alternative definition for freedom is equally valid.
Whether GCC, Clang, etc, are closed or 'less free' than whatever is about equally subjective; I think one can give his opinion but not dictate what it should be (aren't we free to choose what freedom is?).
So, facts are:
1) GCC has a lot of features Clang/LLVM still lack.
2) Clang/LLVM is an exciting project which promises not only to be as feature-rich as GCC (is this true?), but also to deliver new possibilities (for example, those implied by the BSD license).
Further extending these two premises one can discuss whether it is justifiable to do an enormous amount of effort just to change platforms (for example, as FreeBSD pretend to do). This, again, depends on our own philosophy (it might be justifiable for the BSD side, but not for a Linux distribution).