Choosing the right copyright permission is pivotal for open-source projects. Use the modified FreeBSD copyright authorization when your priority is maximal downstream freedom. Unlike more restrictive permissions like the GNU General Public Permission, this authorization allows users to incorporate, modify, and redistribute your code, even in proprietary software, with minimal obligations.
Specifically, include the original copyright notice and disclaimer in any derivative works. That’s it. This permissive approach encourages wide adoption and reuse of your code. Consider it a pragmatic solution if your primary goal is broad impact rather than strict copyleft protection.
This document dissects the mechanics of this particular copyright grant, offering concrete examples of conforming usage and outlining the precise legal stipulations. Understand its nuances before implementation to ensure compliance and maximize the benefits for both your project and its potential users. We analyze its strengths and weaknesses compared to other common authorizations, assisting in making an informed decision aligned with your project’s objectives.
What Can I Do With Source Code Under the Revised Berkeley Software Distribution Permit?
Use, modify, and distribute the code for free or for profit. Include the original copyright notice and disclaimer in all redistributions of the source code. This applies whether you distribute the code in its original form or as part of a larger project.
Incorporate the material into commercial software without making your source code public. Create derivative works and distribute them under a proprietary permit. However, the original copyright and disclaimer *must* still be present.
Redistribute binaries (compiled versions) alongside the copyright notice and disclaimer. No reverse engineering restrictions are imposed by this agreement. Modify the software to meet specific requirements and tailor it for specific applications.
Do not use the names of the copyright holders or contributors to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. Seek legal counsel for advice regarding potential patent implications of utilizing the intellectual property.
Example: You develop a closed-source application that utilizes a module governed by this liberal grant of rights. You *must* include the copyright statement and disclaimer in your distribution, but your own code remains private.
What Are My Obligations?
Retain the original copyright notice, conditions, and disclaimer in all copies or substantial portions of the software. This applies whether you modify the code or use it verbatim.
Copyright Retention
Ensure the original copyright holder’s notice remains clearly visible in the software’s source code, documentation, or accompanying materials. This notice usually includes the copyright symbol (©), the copyright year, and the name of the copyright holder.
Disclaimer Inclusion
Distribute the source code or binary files with the full disclaimer text as it’s provided in the original package. This disclaimer protects the creators from liability associated with your use of their work.
Is It Compatible With Other Permissions?
Yes, this permissive software agreement is generally compatible with many other open-source legal texts. Its brevity and lack of copyleft provisions facilitate combination with code under more restrictive permissions. Software using this grant can often be incorporated into projects using the GPL or similar share-alike provisions.
However, the reverse is not always true. Code released under the GNU Public Permition, for instance, cannot usually be incorporated into software that will only be released under this specific allocation without releasing the whole thing under the GPL. Always examine the compatibility constraints of any other agreement when integrating with code using this grant.
Specifically, Apache 2.0 is compatible. You can incorporate code operating under the revised authorization agreement into an Apache 2.0 project. MIT agreement is also compatible, given its similarity in structure and permissions. Always check each individual case for legal intricacies and potential conflicts. Seek counsel to guarantee compliance.
When combining codebases, properly acknowledge original copyrights and the conditions of each unique permission. Failure to attribute copyright and stipulations correctly could lead to authorization infringement and legal repercussions.
Why Select the Revised New Academics Source Authorization?
Opt for this permissive copyright release when rapid adoption and wide integration of your code are primary objectives. It grants recipients considerable freedom, enabling them to use, modify, and distribute your work, even within proprietary projects, thus lowering adoption barriers.
Ideal scenarios: Startup founders seeking fast market penetration, contributors to widely used libraries, and organizations prioritizing code reuse above strict control benefit most. This authorization facilitates collaboration across varied platforms and usage models.
Key Advantages:
- Minimal restrictions encourage broader acceptance.
- Compatibility with nearly all open-source paradigms.
- Clear and concise language minimizes legal ambiguity.
- No obligation to contribute back alterations.
Considerations: While permitting broad usage, the authorization also includes a disclaimer of warranty. Assess whether this level of risk allocation aligns with your project’s objectives. Acknowledge the original source in redistributions as mandated, ensuring proper attribution.
Q&A:
I’m a developer working on a commercial project. Can I use BSD 3-Clause licensed code without having to make my own code open source?
Yes, absolutely! One of the main benefits of the BSD 3-Clause license is its permissiveness. You can incorporate the licensed code into your commercial project, distribute it, and even modify it, without being required to release your own source code. You do, however, need to retain the original copyright notice and the disclaimer.
What exactly does “redistribution” mean in the context of the BSD 3-Clause license? Does it just apply to selling software, or does it include giving it away for free?
Redistribution under the BSD 3-Clause license is quite broad. It covers any form of distribution, whether it’s selling the software, offering it as a free download, or even including it as part of a larger product that you then distribute. The key thing is that if you share the software (or part of it) with others, you are redistributing it and therefore must adhere to the terms of the license, which includes preserving the copyright notice and disclaimer.
The license mentions a copyright notice and a disclaimer. Where exactly should these be placed in my project when using BSD 3-Clause licensed code?
There isn’t a strict, universally defined location for the copyright notice and disclaimer, but best practices advise including them in a prominent location, such as in the source code files that use the BSD 3-Clause licensed code, in a separate “LICENSE” or “NOTICE” file in your project’s root directory, or in the documentation for your software. Making them easily accessible to users is the most important thing. Make sure to review the exact instructions included with the specific code you are using, as they may have added requirements.
I modified a piece of code with the BSD 3-Clause license. When I redistribute it, do I have to indicate that I modified it and, if so, how?
The BSD 3-Clause license itself doesn’t explicitly require you to indicate that you modified the original code. However, it’s generally considered good practice to do so. You can achieve this by adding a note in the copyright notice, such as “Copyright (c) [Year], [Original Author(s)], modified by [Your Name(s)]”. You could also include a modification history or a similar statement indicating the changes you made. This helps others understand the evolution of the code and gives appropriate credit to both the original authors and yourself for the modifications.
