I wish people wouldn't say things like this....
Among Open Source licenses there aren't really any that are "better."
More properly, the are different.
The purpose of the GPL is to ensure that the code stays free. The terms of the GPL state that if you take GPL code, change it and then distribute binaries, you have to provide the source code for your changes. This ensures that no one takes the code and locks it up.
There are philosophical differences and some people may disagree with the purpose of the GPL, but it's no better or worse than other licenses.
The purpose of the GPL being to keep code available, it is "better" for that purpose.
If that doesn't interest you, then it's not "better," so using "better" is entirely point-of-view.
The only problem of the GPL (and I'm talking about GPL2) is that it is ambiguous. You don't know the extent of what's allowed depending on the author.
By more free I meant the balance between the producer and consumer, maximum freedom to both parties without conflict. You want to make sure the actual code stays free, which GPL does and BSD doesn't. You want to make sure the consumer has maximum rights, which BSD does and the GPL doesn't. The MPL balances this perfectly IMHO: the code itself and modifications to the code itself remain free, and consumers get maximum rights just short of violating the freedom of the code. Depending on the author, the GPL may mean that more than just the original code and modifications must be made free, such as software that only links to the original code.
It's not that the GPL2 is bad, I just don't like the ambiguity that can lead to overreaching. And I hate overreaching in licenses.