This argument is moot. Proprietary software doesn't have to live at a dissonance from FLOSS software, nor does free software protect the integrity of freedom. So there are proprietary compilers being derived from LLVM... How does that prevent somebody from throwing out the proprietary compiler on principle in order to support the open source alternative?

Forcing somebody to respect your ideological beliefs regarding freedom is just as much a wolf in sheep's clothing as a notion to force somebody to bend to your will regarding how the software you use may function by design.

There is a place for open source licenses and there is a place for free software licenses. To say free software protects the interest of technological innovation better than open source software can is a position based on a foundation of ignorant dissension.

Science has little use for politics playing a major role as a core value. 99% of all people Using software could care less about the freedom of software, and the 1% who do care are split between the engineers who value the ideals of innovation by collaboration, and the executives who understand that too much freedom means everybody gets stuck with a bounced cheque.