I'll answer to the top-level comment since this applies to other
comments already present here.
Before you keep on reading: I do know that the GNU GPL and the free
software philosophy mustn't be considered the same thing. And for those
who are reading this, I'll explain why: The GNU GPL is just a license,
and doesn't represent the free software philosophy entirely. As a mater
of fact, the free software movement accepts other licenses which aren't
even from the GNU project, like Apache License, Version 2.0; Artistic
License 2.0; modified BSD license ("3-clause BSD license"); Creative
Commons Public Domain; Expat License (sometimes referred as "MIT
License", although MIT has never made a license for its own use);
informal licenses; The Unlicense; X11 License (also referred as "MIT
License". Did you notice what I mean?); and many other licenses[1].
So... Back to the main subject:
What Ubuntu, and probably, Linux Live USB Creator, violates is the free
software philosophy.
Non-free software dependency/recommendation/suggestion/teaching/usage is
like a poisonous tree, that makes other poisonous trees from its
poisonous fruits. There are various ways to tackle this, just pick one:
* Offer to help developing the tree from the close up, and be a watchdog
to purify the tree;
* Take the seeds from the poisonous fruit and start studying and
purifying it;
* If the fruit has no seeds, take the poisonous fruit itself and start
studying and purifying it;
* Develop a purified tree from zero/scratch;
* Organize campaigns against the replication of the poisonous trees.
REFERENCES
[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html
