The BSD license in itself makes it better. GNU licenses encourage recycling bloat (inefficiencies/ bugs), because no one wants to give up their contributions the competitor who owns the copyright for one piece of software, then not be able to keep the next improvement for themselves. It makes the solution, use a lot of software to get 1 needed piece of code, because allows someone to patch the problem, so they don't have to use their heavy time and resources to benefit the owner of the copyright, more than the open source community. Then, no one can make the next improvement, without giving up their rights to that. With a BSD or MIT license, someone can improve it, and it benefits everyone, then some GNU licenses can absorb that improvement too.
Clang may not work with everything yet, but its improvement curve is being much faster than GCC.
GCC is of course a good quality compiler since it drives many systems.
No, it's not, but there's quality code hidden in it.
If FreeBSD stuck with GCC, by its newer license we would be forced to use their bloat. By them moving up the license, FreeBSD, would either have to stick with the older GCC, which can only go so far, being forced to use that old license, or further be controlled by GCC, and not be able to have as many freedoms for software compiled on it. Any benefit put forward to GCC would be lost for them to own. That will slow down and harm the project, for FreeBSD users to do what they want, or use their hard work to improve the system, not lose that work, so they can't make the next benefit.
I don't even want to hear about GCC anymore. The topic of this thread is about GCC, not what else is there other than Clang (that's not GCC).