I find it a stretch to call this a lie; at some point a piece of hardware reaches a sufficiently advanced stage that it can fully represent a high level API to its host system, and somewhere an ill-defined line is crossed where the hardware's internals are now considered "software" and we have a prerogative to understand and exercise dominion over every aspect.
By that logic, the FSF should be picketing the Intel offices due to presenting a high level X86 API to GNU/Hurd, and demand immediate release of their microcode toolchain and all associated documentation. Join us now and share the hardware..
Ssomewhere we cross the line to activism for the sheer sake of activism, free of any underlying meaningful, useful goal to achieve. It's difficult to imagine Broadcom agreed to this release with disingenuity at heart, their solution to the problem domain just happened to evolve some strange CPU-like hardware that probably includes some bizarre opcodes for tokenizing GLSL, and due to this technical choice we're suddenly branding them liars.
Where is the limit defined? "Gee thanks for your firmware release, but I really need to see the netlist for your PARSEGLSLTOKENB instruction, otherwise this isn't truly free software". From certain angles the entire universe looks like software, and it's even fun to think about things like this, but at some point you have to accept that dirt is dirt.