You can't rely entirely on OpenBSD's policy. Note this passage:
> It follows however, that OpenBSD cannot include material
> which includes copyrights which are more restrictive than
> the Berkeley copyright, or must relegate this material to
> a secondary status, i.e. OpenBSD as a whole is freely
> redistributable, but some optional components may not be.
In other words, software which doesn't follow their policy is something they
avoid, but not strictly in the case of "optional" components. In fact, any
copylefted program goes against this policy, and yet OpenBSD includes some
copylefted programs even in its base installation, "[f]or historical
reasons". So you can't entirely rely on the OpenBSD team to keep all
proprietary software out of the system.
On a side note, I'm also wary of giving support to the OpenBSD team, or any
BSD team, simply because of their opposition to copyleft and intention to
replace all useful copylefted programs with pushover-licensed programs, to be
honest. I feel like giving money to them funds development of software that
threatens our bargaining power with proprietary software developers, like
LLVM, and in effect hurts our movement more than it helps it. Though to be
fair, I also have no interest on a technical level in a BSD system, so I'm
not giving money towards this anyway.
