Xorg was only recently in the last few years taken over by freedesktop. Before that, it was Unix overall, rather than Linux. It's another example of Linux taking over more stuff. And Xorg is still not Linux. So this is Linux getting credit for something by taking it over, not by creating it. Xorg is BSD and MIT in spirit, rather than GNU.
The majority of Xorg was created not being under Linux, but as Xorg, before Freedesktop took it over.
It's like saying TrueNAS is Linux, when that was FreeBSD for most of its life, and Linux getting the reputation by just jumping in at the last moment. Linux getting credit over the majority of Xorg's code because of FreeDesktop is cheap.
OpenBSD also has its own version of Xorg, which doesn't seem to be Linux at all. Xenocara has been around before Freedesktop took over Xorg. And Xorg itself was largely complete by then.
FreeBSD has parts of the graphics drivers written from scratch as entirely originating in FreeBSD. Soon, AMD and Intel's graphics drivers will be entirely FreeBSD and not Linux at all. The core graphics stack is from the Intel and AMD manufacturers themselves, not Linux, under permissive licenses, so other operating systems could use it.
As for KDE, they seem to have something in common for FreeBSD, as their license theory aligns more. They want something that protects their open source software, but is less restrictive than the GPL. To remain compatible with GPL, and be a little less restrictive, they use LGPL. I'm not a fan of KDE desktop, as I use lighter window managers, even lighter than the ones I've used before. I'm still a fan of applications which are meant for the KDE desktop and a fan of Qt5. Still, KDE and Qt aren't FreeBSD or Linux, they're KDE or Qt. They just run on what operating systems they can. If anything, Linux mucks things up as much as it improves them.
What I see is that the GPL only allows transfer in one direction. And I see the trend of Linux taking over permissive software or its reputation as a nuisance, even if the license stays the same. Linux is getting credit for non GNU non GPL code by only recently taking it over. The trend of GPL3 being made to incorporate Apache 2 licensed code is another part to the nuisance.
Taking over CUPS and Xorg, and influencing TrueNAS to get one of FreeBSD's strongest credits are nuisances.
A lot of these weren't Linux achievements at all, it's Linux stepping in and getting assumed credit for software outside of the GNU, Linux or GPL. They can do it, bc they have the market share, large number of people and resources. FreeBSD, pound for pound is better. I'm also frustrated, because the BSD's don't work closer together and collaborate, where anyone of them has benefits or progress that other BSD's don't have yet.