It is Apache v2 licensed, which means that Shumway is free software. So, if Shumway functions adequately then I imagine that the FSF will consider the task complete. Believe it or not, the FSF and the GNU project don't demand that everything be GPL licensed.
Some years ago I wrote a comment on Slashdot[1] where I researched what GNU software isn't copyleft. Copying it here because it took me almost 20 minutes to find it again, and I want the info to gain some Google juice so I can find it next time I need it (maybe in 6 years?):
These are all the GNU packages not under a copyleft license I have been able to verify. I have tried to err on the side of caution, which means all the packages listed here are GNU and not copyleft, but there might be some non-copyleft GNU packages that I have failed to list:
Kawa [fsf.org]: licensed under the Kawa License [gnu.org], which is an X-11/MIT style license. Kawa is a Scheme/Emacs Lisp environment that runs on Java, in case you were wondering.
GNU less [fsf.org]: the page says it is licensed under a SimplePermissiveNowarranty, but if you download the latest less tarball from ftp.gnu.org [gnu.org], you will find it is GPLd. However, older versions of less were non-copyleft [gnu.org], and they still are, as you can still download them.
Ncurses [gnu.org], which is distributed under an X11-style license.
Proto [fsf.org], which is is a tool for finding C and C++ function prototypes (someone please explain to me what that means), in the Public Domain. This one is not downloadable from the GNU ftp, but I guess that, if they list it as a GNU project, it must be.
Quexo [fsf.org], xquery implementation using Kawa to compile to java bytecode. Under the Kawa license, which means an X11-style license.
Speex [fsf.org], an audio compression codec for voice, under the Xiph.org license (a modified BSD)
At least one other non-GNU programs is listed as being GNU on the directory, like Slib [fsf.org], a portable scheme library, which under a simple permissive non-warranty license.
Since Apache can be relicensed as I understand, doesn't that mean GNU people could just slap GPL on there if that's what stops them using it? Isn't this how they usually integrate FF anyways, by renaming it something to something like Icyfox and changing its license?
'Iceweasel' is the branding Debian applies to Firefox (and 'Icedove' for Thunderbird). That's nothing to do with the code license, it's specifically about trademark and copyright on the names and logos.
The artwork in Firefox had a proprietary copyright license.
As for the license:
The rebranded programs are available under Mozilla's
standard MPL/GPL/LGPL tri-license. Like Mozilla, the
default icons are under the same tri-license, but unlike
Mozilla, there are no trademark restrictions.
The AGPL doesn't either. We have a product based on a third-party AGPL licensed codebase and we're fully compliant even if we don't contribute everything back.
You should really read up on the licenses and the intent behind them; contributing back was never the point.
I understand, which is why I personally prefer to use copyleft licenses. However, non-copyleft licenses like Apache v2 are still compatible with free software.
On the positive side, apache has a strong patent clause. It was so much admired, that FSF used it for GPLv3 (with the single adjustment regarding patent agreements).
