> I have run across this before, when companies have told me that they hate the GPL because they are not keen on spending a lot of time, energy, and money modifying some piece of code, only to be required to give it to their competitors for free.

Nonsense; the GPL does not require that one's competitors receive code, but rather one's users. It further requires that one may not prevent them from giving the code to others, with the same rights.

Thanks to the BSD, Intel's users are unable to patch, modify or extend the hardware & software they have bought.

> If nothing else, this bit of news reaffirms my view that the Berkeley license provides the maximum amount of freedom to potential users.

I think that I've demonstrated that the freedom has not accrued to users but rather to Intel.