Choosing the 4-clause BSD license is a conscious decision to continue to receive credit for all your hard work, when a proprietary software company comes along and includes your code in their product. To me this is a fair compromise for proprietary companies who refuse to open up their source code (i.e., would never touch GPL at all).
As I mention in a reply to the sibling comment, I don't fault the developer for choosing a free software license that suits their purposes. I just don't think it's fair to blame the GPL for the incompatibility that happens when a developer chooses a 4-clause BSD license.
(Also, remember that the developer could always dual-license - ie, "GPL or 4-clause BSD - if you want to use my software in proprietary code, then you have to advertise me").
It's a fair compromise for anyone. Being credited for your own work isn't as evil as RMS thinks (arguably somewhat ironic as he wants the FSF to be credited with Linux).
