They're probably avoiding git because it's GPL. They're awfully picky about that sort of thing. But yes, I had the same reaction. There's bound to be some modern VCS that would be better for them.
I wasn't involved in all of the VCS discussions, but from what I remember, the license question wasn't brought up at all -- I didn't realize until five minutes ago that SVN was Apache licensed, and we've been using CVS for many many years despite it being GPL licensed.
FreeBSD developers want to produce BSD licensed code, of course, but we're not zealots about the tools we use -- we'll use GPLed tools (e.g., CVS and GCC) if they're the best available, and we've even used commercial software (perforce) where it serves a useful purpose.
There's bound to be some modern VCS that would be better for them.
There were advocates within the FreeBSD community for each of SVN, Git, Mercurial. Really, we were all aware of the options.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_revision_control_...
I can use Photoshop to make a graphic, and then release that graphic as part of a BSD-licensed package without any trouble, since I own the copyright on that graphic.