As far as I searched what is free software is the Vulkan implementation that runs on top of the intrinsic GPU and drivers (that have DRM and no source code).
The intrinsic GPU drivers on the kernel are still close source. So basically AMD and NVIDIA are the same. They both have source for some engines implementation but both kernel drivers are close source.
Deluge is GPLv3 only. Qbittorrent is a mix of GPLv2 and GPLv3. Personally I'll stick to v3 since it includes specific terms that protect against modern DRM and ways to circumvent GPLv2.
Maybe it has changed to better. I don't have Epic Games, but a few years ago I went to a friend's home and tested Epic Games and it forced you to stay online in order to be able to play. There was no offline mode like in Steam.
I also have a subjective view. I really love the steam communities (uninvolved with Steam), workshop, Proton, Gamer communities. I feel that the approach of selling free candies that Epic Games has used it's untrustworthy. And Epic Games communities look. All friends that I know that have Epic Games it's because of the free candies, but nothing else. They don't open Epic Games for anything else, they don't talk on communities, etc.
Both of them are companies, but it feels like steam cares more about its community and users.
By mentioning AT&T I'm talking about the sue against BSD on 90's (which started a limbo for a lot of open source software developed at universities). That sue started the free software movement ( that is usually mistaken by open source) and all the *nix derivates. For example foundation of FSF, GPL License, GNU, Linux, etc.
Then on 20's Google wanted to implement a similar software development scheme, but with the possibility of making privative any piece of software as they wish without further notice. So they created an open source license (that doesn't protect the software) and spread the concept around the world.
Now we get surprised when Google suddenly makes private a part of source code that it's designed to implement DRM measures on the web. But we knew that this was going to happen.
We already seen this behavior on the AT&T vs. BSD sue. But well, only humans fall 3 times on the same stone.
Free software licences were created to solve this problem. Yet their meaning has been forgotten, and companies have spread open source as the "right" movement just because it benefits them, but not the user.
Gotta love the open source licences (when we have libre licences). At least Google stand as a good example on why open source licences are not a good option in comparison to free ones (we have BSD vs AT&T too as an example).
I mean macos is Unix certified. But *nix systems are better.