It's not about patches. FreeBSD drivers generally shouldn't be patches; they should be loadable modules so you can use them without recompiling the kernel. No

It's not about patches. FreeBSD drivers generally shouldn't be patches; they should be loadable modules so you can use them without recompiling the kernel. Now if you changed your hypothetical so that it's not a patch but a separate module that compiles to its own distinct binary, and your hypothetical license were expanded to include a second clause, "Anything that links to binaries built from this code must inherit this license," then we'd be talking about a situation that replicates the issues with making use of GPL code in projects that use more permissive licenses.