Erm, what? Who is ignoring the BSD licence, and how?
Agreed, BSD is easygoing - though one might argue MIT is better still if you want lawyer-free. But that's nothing to do with this article. And ironically I don't think they're actually lawyer-free at all: rather they're a lawyer's minimum conditions for releasing source while covering an institutional arse against being sued.
If you mean the "we only need three licences" comment, I read that as making a point about duplication in the proliferation of licences. Not about the licences themselves. I could speculate that it hints at "Apache is the modernised BSD", but to say that's what he meant would be putting words in his mouth. And I wouldn't entirely agree, but then I still think GPLv2 was a work of genius - in part because it kicked off the whole debate, but also because it's a lawyer-free work that's since held up in court against lawyer attacks.