GPLv3 is virally open source (copyleft), BSD 2-Clause is not.

Your first statement is patently false and misleading.

Two variants of the license, the New BSD License/Modified BSD License (3-clause), and the Simplified BSD License/FreeBSD License (2-clause) have been verified as GPL-compatible free software licenses by the Free Software Foundation, and have been vetted as open source licenses by the Open Source Initiative. (Wikipedia)

Being “copyleft” is not a requirement for being open source. Maybe you’re thinking of free software. There are differences, but as the FSF is quoted, they are also very similar.

GPLv3 ensures free software remains free and contributions cannot be exploited and withheld from the community. BSD2C does not.

To my understanding, and if I’m wrong I’d love to know why, both GPLv3 and BSD2 both ensure the openness of software. They just go about it differently. GPL (I’m not super versed at v3) basically means any modifications to GPL’d code must also be GPL’d, and source made available; also, if you statically link against other GPL’d code, your code must be GPL’d. Dynamic linking (or linking against LGPL code, like glibc) does not have this requirement.

With BSD code, your only requirement is that the code (or binaries) must remain BSD2. Sure, someone can make modifications and keep them to themselves for fun and profit. But that doesn’t mean the rest of the community has to follow suit. The original code remains open and available with no license modifications. If a company owns BSD2 code, and goes under, the community can simply fork the code and take ownership as they please.

Neither license is perfect, and I’m sure we could find plenty of examples of people/companies that have abused both licenses.

I understand your reasoning, but I think your logic is flawed. If Ladybird is GPLv3, then browsers will continue to use Chromium base which helps the Chrome monopoly. By making it BSD, it will help others adopt it.