For those that do know and do care, I think there's very few who would refuse to use BSD-licensed software. From a GNU-perspective, the BSD/MIT-style licence is misguided, but not reprehensible.
But to the core of your question: yes -- there is more to the choice between Linux and the BSDs than licensing.
FreeBSD, perhaps most of all, is a linear descendant of the original Bell Labs Unix. And it maintains a style of development that emphasizes consistency, elegance, and a smallish core group of like minds curating the system. That style is true of all(?) the BSDs, with some different emphasis in each camp.
The Linux kernel, OTOH, was originally written by a gifted but inexperienced student, attempting to get a work-alike of Minix that took advantage of the i386's new features. It was a quick hack, put together over a few months, to get something running that proved it could be done. The kernel was paired with userland applications from the GNU project, from the general community of "source available" software at that time, and massaged into the mostly novel concept of distributions by many and varied groups of people, often with only distant relationships with the kernel developers.
Over time, the skill and experience levels of the Linux kernel developers has matured, but it maintains a (much) more broad range of skills, aptitudes, experience, goals, etc, than the BSDs.
Which is not to say that either of the Linux kernel or the BSD kernel(s) is "better". They have different strengths and weaknesses, as do their userland ecosystems.
It's all far more important than the licensing differences.
My view, YMMV, etc.