What matters is if the upstream Linux community is comfortable enough with the license to allow it upstream, which is why I said "considered".
> No im asking why Linus thinks its acceptable to distribute proprietary Firmware, but needs a personal letter from Lord Elison and ZFS needs to be GPL'd....otherwise just don't use it.
There's a big difference between these two things. The first is redistributing proprietary firmware in a completely separate repository from the Linux source code. All firmware included in the linux-firmware repository is explicitly allowed to be redistributed [1], which is why they do not have fears about distributing those binary files.
I'll quote the readme: "If your commit adds new firmware, it must update the WHENCE file to clearly state the license under which the firmware is available, and that it is redistributable."
The second is introducing CDDL licensed code into a GPLv2 project, where that project considers the CDDL license to be incompatible, along with worries (however unfounded) about a notoriously litigious company.
> That is because you can close and still distribute BSD licensed Software, but not when it contains GPL'd Software, thats why you dont want it in the Base-System, no one has something against GPL there, but FreeBSD wants to distribute a complete Operating-system under the BSD License.
Yes the FreeBSD community does not want GPL code in the base system as it prevents them from from distributing a 100% permissively licensed system, and it's understandable why that is a goal. But how is that meaningfully different than the Linux community not wanting code with a license they feel is incompatible with their goals?
[1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/firmware/lin...