No. It's not that at all. The GCC/LLVM debate has nothing whatsoever to do with licensing, but crippling the design of gcc for political aims. Educate yourself on the subject.
The GCC has an plugin system, but not one that allows proprietary modules. The people that care about that distinction only do so because of the licensing difference between GPL and proprietary licensing.
And I don't see how the FSF could ever have furthered their political goals by making it technically hard to use GCC in free software tools, quite the contrary. Would be quite interested in evidence of that.
RMS says "freedom" is worth sacrificing functionality for. GCC is a monolithic mess of shit that is virtually impossible to debug, and produces incorrect code very frequently. Being forced into a terrible architecture where everything is smushed into everything else just to prevent people from being able to use gcc as a front end and something else as a backend is absolutely a case of making the code worse for the sake of trying to further a political agenda.
GCC is a monolithic mess of shit that is virtually impossible to debug