@dj @sally @nyanide @yomiel >what you are talking about?
Every single BSD is chock full of proprietary software and nonfreeBSD is one of the worst cases.

Just a small sample, but it's enough;
https://cgit.freebsd.org/src/tree/sys/contrib/dev

https://cgit.freebsd.org/src/tree/sys/contrib/dev/nvidia/LICENCE.nvidia
https://cgit.freebsd.org/src/tree/sys/contrib/dev/nvidia/tegra124_xusb.bin.uu
https://cgit.freebsd.org/src/tree/sys/contrib/dev/nvidia/tegra210_xusb.bin.uu

https://cgit.freebsd.org/src/tree/sys/contrib/dev/otus/otus-license
https://cgit.freebsd.org/src/tree/sys/contrib/dev/otus/otus-init

>The MIT license is even more free than GPL,
MIT released many licenses and there is no such thing as "GPL" - there is; GPLv{1,2,3}, LGPLv{1,2,2.1,2} & AGPLv{1,2,3}.

Assuming you mean MIT expat, that is in fact less free than the GPLv3;
expat; "including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish,
distribute, sublicense"

GPLv3; "Sublicensing is not allowed; section 10 makes it unnecessary."

MIT expat gives explicit permission to sublicense and therefore take freedom, which results in *less freedom*, as the amount of freeness in the world *reduces*.

>that's why they call the developers cucks for giving away their code.
They don't just give it away - they explicitly make the choice to write software that they know with certainty will be taken and incorporated into proprietary software, to better assist with taking the freedom of many users, without getting paid and are proud of doing so (yes, they somehow turn the moral act of releasing free software under a free software license into a immoral act).