The author is deeply misguided and clearly frustrated. The claim that the GPL can't be enforced is simply wrong. GPL violations are regularly challenged in court and through community pressure. But let's assume for a moment that the author's claims are valid in the context of AI. Wouldn't the GPL be just another permissive license? Why switch to the BSD license, which explicitly throws away the one right GPL still guarantees: the ability to demand that derivative works remain open?The GPL gives you enforceable rights. The BSD license gives corporations a free pass to close off your code. Calling this "pragmatic" isn't just backward, it abandons protections that matter. And frankly, it baffles my mind that someone who believes closed source shouldn't exist would be this fatalist to give up the leverage that still protects openness.
No comments yet.