@Suiseiseki
> Ah, the BSDs at it again, including proprietary malware and then complaining that they can't make derivative works of GPLv3'd works with the proprietary mess, rather than just not including the proprietary malware.

That's not why it's incompatible, otherwise Debian, Ubuntu, … would likely also be.
The reason for BSDs comes down to them using a sort of monorepo for their base system, any kind of license incompatibility there is pretty fatal as it would force a re-licensing (that's what "viral" means).

By the way, without someone like Theo de Raadt we would likely be with deeply proprietary device-software("firmware") and drivers (in fact two dramas were linux relicensing bcw/bcm43xx and ath5k) because linux just accepts those, even when not even freely redistributable, as you can still see today with the linux-firmware repository and the vast majority of distros preferring nvidia binary drivers.

> Actually, I'm not really sure if there are any actually used licenses, proprietary or otherwise that are compatible with the GPLv2, but not the GPLv3

GPLv2 itself is already an example of that, it is incompatible with GPLv3, the only reason shit didn't blow up is because most have "GPL2-or-later" licensing, which is comparable to dual-licensing except no one knows in advance what the later licences will be.