It seems such bsd people then don't believe in the power granted by the bsd license to others using it as they wish to. Ironically. May I suggest GPL for their next project?
But by the very act of making their code bsd, they have removed any valid excuse to whine. Anything that happens is just a natural consequence of their decision: whether that be someone making bank on your code without giving you any of the changes back or GPL projects GPLifying a fork of you.
Carmack explicitly mentions the BSD/GPL question in connection with copilot. He is working on AI now and has an explicit interest in the intellectual property discussions that flared up after copilot.
It's natural that people think he's using his status as a super programmer to lobby for the position that currently benefits him.
I don't see why he would be more qualified to assess the pros/cons of the GPL than the Linux and GCC authors.
> I don't see why he would be more qualified to assess the pros/cons of the GPL than the Linux and GCC authors.
That is simple: he has thought about it in more depth than most of them. Most Linux and GCC authors don't really care about licensing much, just code they can work collaboratively on. Since the code they are working on is GPL they use GPL and get back to work.
I suspect if Linus took the time to really think he would use BSD for Linux - it hasn't been possible to make this type of change since like 1992 at the latest though so there is no point in him thinking about it. And in turn that means my claim is not testable.
> I don't see why he would be more qualified to assess the pros/cons of the GPL than the Linux and GCC authors.
I don't think he is. I would be equally frustrated if Linus Torvalds made an argument about the pros and cons of each license and people replied with generic proselytism.
My point isn't that Carmack's status means people should automatically listen to him. I'm saying he made a thought-out argument, based on practical considerations, and the way most people answered didn't really address the argument, so much as re-state a previous held belief that license X is better than license Y.
