Restrictiveness of the GPL vs. BSD license
 

Greetings,
I was watching a video on YouTube where a kid was briefly comparing the restrictiveness of the GPL license to the much more free and less restrictive BSD license. This puzzled me when he said this because I was under the impression that it was the other way around. That the GPL license was far more free than the much more restrictive BSD license..
Thank you

GPL is copyleft license. BSD is less restrictive atmost asking to preserve just the original copyright holder name and license. Read about them in Wikipedia or original license text itself.

Not exactly...and it depends on how you look at it.

The BSD license allows you to do anything with the code, modify it, make binaries, sell it. What is restrictive is that the USER of those binaries have no rights to anything but the binaries. They cannot look at any modifications, nor are they given any sources to rebuild from, and they cannot (usually) redistribute either.

The GPL license allows you do do anything with the code, modify it, make binaries, sell it - BUT only if you include the modified source, AND allow the recipient of the code the same rights you got.

From the point of view of the "seller", the GPL limits what can be done...

From the point of view of the "purchaser", the BSD limits what can be done...

From the point of view of the original author (where the code originated from) and released it under the BSD gets no rights to anything other than to the code they already have. Under the GPL, they could get the modifications from anyone that is willing to pass them on - as those modifications are ALSO under the GPL.

The end result is that the GPL allows more people to use the code. It can be viewed as a "share and share alike" licence. Businesses are finding that it can distribute the costs of development, and thus reduce the total cost significantly.