If you’re seeking to rapidly integrate open-source software into a proprietary project, the Modified Berkeley Software Distribution permit presents a compelling option. Its permissive nature allows for modification reproduction, distribution, usage for commercial purposes, with very minimal requirements. Specifically, retain the original copyright notice disclaimers, do not use the names of the contributors authors to endorse your project.
The key advantage of this permit lies in its flexibility. Unlike copyleft agreements, the Modified Berkeley Software Distribution permit does not require you to release modifications or derivatives under the same terms. This makes it attractive to organizations with closed-source business models. However, understanding the nuances is crucial to avoid potential legal pitfalls.
This guide examines the key stipulations within the Modified Berkeley Software Distribution permit, providing practical insights for both developers attorneys. We will show specific code examples illustrate how the copyright notice disclaimer should be incorporated into derivative works.
What Can You Do With BSD Code?
Utilize liberated code for nearly any purpose. Freely modify the software to meet your specific needs. You can incorporate it into commercial products without obligation to open-source your modifications. Redistribute the original source code or your altered versions as you see fit.
Specifically, you are permitted to:
- Embed the software into proprietary applications.
- Sell derivative works derived from the software.
- Utilize the code in internal projects without publishing any changes.
- Distribute pre-built binaries without providing source code, adhering to the notice requirement.
However, there are a few key stipulations:
- Maintain the original copyright notice. This is mandatory!
- Include the disclaimer of warranty in your distributions. Do not remove this!
- You cannot use the copyright holders’ names or contributors’ names to endorse or promote your products without explicit prior written permission.
Failure to comply with these minor conditions could result in copyright infringement. So, carefully incorporate the original copyright notice and disclaimer in any distribution.
Obligations When Reusing Software Under the Revised Berkeley Software Distribution Permit
Retain the original copyright notice. Any redistribution of the software, in source or binary form, requires the inclusion of the initial copyright declaration. This notification confirms the original authorship.
Reproduce the disclaimer. All modified or redistributed copies must include the “as is” warranty disclaimer from the original code. This section limits the liability of the original authors.
Do not use the names of contributors for endorsement. The authorization forbids utilizing names of copyright holders or contributors to endorse or promote products derived from the software without specific prior permission. This safeguard protects the reputation of the original developers.
Practical Implications
Verify the completeness of attribution. Before distribution, double-check that the copyright notice and disclaimer are correctly included in all relevant source files, documentation, and distribution packages.
Compliance Mechanisms
Automate notice inclusion. Integrate tools into your build process that automatically insert the copyright notice and disclaimer into all distributed software components to avoid manual errors.
Comparing the Permissive Software Permit to Other Open Source Grants
Choose the permissive grant when minimal restrictions on redistribution are desired. It differs significantly from copyleft permits such as the GNU General Public Permit (GPL). The GPL requires that derivative works also be distributed under the GPL, creating a “viral” effect. Software disseminated under the revised Berkeley Software Distribution grant allows incorporating the code into proprietary products without obligating the resultant product to open sourcing.
Apache 2.0 offers patent protection, a stipulation not explicitly found in many other permissive grants. This is significant for projects anticipating potential patent disputes. Modified Berkeley Software Distribution grants do not inherently offer such explicit assurance.
The MIT permit is comparable in its lax requirements. However, a key difference involves the patent clause (or the absence of one). The Apache 2.0 grant explicitly addresses patent usage rights, which may make it more attractive for some projects. With the revised Berkeley Software Distribution permit and the MIT permit, patentees must include the original copyright notice, giving credit to the initial developer.
The Mozilla Public Permit 2.0 (MPL 2.0) occupies a middle ground. It’s neither strictly permissive nor fully copyleft. Code licensed under MPL 2.0 can be incorporated into proprietary software, but modifications to the MPL-licensed components must remain under MPL 2.0. Consider the MPL 2.0 when a balance between freedom and protection is required.
Is the Permissive Modified Arrangement Suitable for Your Endeavor?
Select this permissive arrangement if widespread adoption is a priority. It allows derived works to be proprietary. If you require contributors to share improvements (copyleft), consider the GNU General Public Authorization (GPL) family.
Use this authorization method when you want to provide maximal freedom to downstream users. Companies frequently choose this structure to encourage integration of their software into commercial products.
The small footprint of the legal text minimizes administrative overhead. If extensive patent protections are a requirement, alternative instruments, such as Apache 2.0, incorporate explicit patent grants.
Assess whether the attribution requirement is acceptable. Developers must retain the original copyright notice, conditions, disclaimer. If this is overly burdensome for your targets, explore alternatives without this stipulation, like the MIT accreditation.
If you intend to utilize contributions from projects employing different authorizations, ascertain compatibility. This arrangement is generally compatible with GPL variations, enabling utilization in GPL software.
Q&A:
What actions am I obliged to take if I use code distributed under the 3-Clause BSD license in my project?
The primary obligation is to reproduce the original copyright notice and the disclaimer of warranty. This information should be included in the source code or documentation accompanying your work. No royalty payments are necessary, and modification of the code is permissible.
I want to modify some software that uses the 3-Clause BSD License. Can I then apply a more restrictive license to my modified version?
Yes, the permissive nature of the 3-Clause BSD license allows you to distribute your modified version under a different, potentially more restrictive, license. However, you must still comply with the original 3-Clause BSD license terms regarding copyright and warranty disclaimers for the original portions of the code.
What distinguishes the 3-Clause BSD license from other open-source licenses such as the GPL?
The main difference lies in their approach to copyleft. The GPL is a strong copyleft license, meaning that if you use GPL-licensed code in your project, your entire project usually needs to be licensed under the GPL as well. The 3-Clause BSD license, on the other hand, is a permissive license. It allows you to use, modify, and distribute the code in both open-source and proprietary projects with minimal restrictions. You only need to include the original copyright notice and disclaimer.
If I find a bug in some software under the 3-Clause BSD license and fix it, am I required to share my fix back to the original project maintainers?
No, you are not legally required to contribute your bug fix back to the original project. The 3-Clause BSD license does not mandate that you share any modifications you make. However, contributing fixes and improvements back to the original project is generally considered good practice within the open-source community.
What does the “no endorsement” clause within the 3-Clause BSD license mean?
The “no endorsement” clause means that you cannot use the name of the original author or the copyright holder to promote your derivative work without their explicit permission. This protects the original author from having their name associated with potentially low-quality or controversial projects based on their code, without their approval.
