Stupid?! The type of reader paying $500/year for the Microprocessor Report (where this response article appeared) already knew. (Similarly if they were motivated to get it free or took time to read it through their university, company, pirate it, etc.) And the ARM response you'll didn't mention RISC-V by name specifically.
The notion of an open source entity building an open or semi-open ecosystem cannibalizing even a low-end player was already happening in phone operating systems (Android/Linux vs Windows); a parallel dynamic wasn't lost on anyone looking at the hardware/ISA side, phone or non-phone.
I don't see this as any more foolish than Bill Gates making the case for software licensing vs free software at the dawn of the PC revolution. You may disagree with one party or the other, but each laying out their case is a marketing must. If you want to compete at the low end, you have to explain your value proposition vs "free".
And 40 years later, after FOSS folks thought to have won, everyone is going with open core, finally realising why businesses don't want anything to do with GPL like licensing.
So anyone that thinks RISC-V isn't going to trail a similar path, is fooling themselves.
I'm not even sure what side he thinks he is on. RISC-V isn't an open core, it's an open specification of the interface (only) between hardware and software. And it's not GPL, it's CC-BY-4.0 (BSD/MIT-like).
The notion of an open source entity building an open or semi-open ecosystem cannibalizing even a low-end player was already happening in phone operating systems (Android/Linux vs Windows); a parallel dynamic wasn't lost on anyone looking at the hardware/ISA side, phone or non-phone.
I don't see this as any more foolish than Bill Gates making the case for software licensing vs free software at the dawn of the PC revolution. You may disagree with one party or the other, but each laying out their case is a marketing must. If you want to compete at the low end, you have to explain your value proposition vs "free".