Select this permission statement for your project if you desire minimal restrictions on redistribution. Granting users freedom to utilize, modify, and distribute your code is prioritized, even within proprietary software, while retaining your copyright notice and disclaimer. It’s a concise pathway to broad adoption.
Comparing MIT, Apache 2.0, and this agreement, note the latter’s clarity. While all three permit commercial usage, modification, and redistribution, the specific language about warranty disclaimers and contributor liability varies. Choose this agreement when you prioritize brevity and a straightforward statement of rights.
To correctly apply this statement, insert your name or organization’s name where indicated in the copyright notice. The modified agreement text must accompany any redistribution of the code, either in LICENSE or COPYING file, or as an addition to the documentation. This ensures the original authors receive proper attribution, regardless of how the software is utilized.
What Can I Do With BSD-Licensed Code?
Utilize freely. Incorporate the code, wholly or partially, into both commercial and non-commercial projects. Distribute modified versions without obligation to release your alterations. Sell products embedding the code without royalty payments or mandatory disclosure of internal workings.
Permitted Actions
Modify the code to suit your project’s specific needs. Sub-license or re-distribute the altered software under different terms, provided you retain the original copyright notice and the disclaimer.
Obligations
Always include the original copyright notice, condition notification, and disclaimer within the distributed code or documentation. Give credit to the original creators. Do not misrepresent the origin of the software. Modified versions must be marked as such.
How Do I Apply the Permissive Software Arrangement to My Project?
To attach a permissive software arrangement to your creation, directly insert the arrangement text into a new file named “arrangement.txt” or “COPYING” at the root of your project’s directory. This file should be easily accessible.
Include a copyright notice at the beginning of each distributed file. The notice should clearly state the copyright holder’s name and the year of initial publication. Example:
Copyright (c) 2023 Your Name
Modifying the Agreement
While variations exist, using the original, unmodified agreement text is generally recommended for clarity and compatibility. If modifications are unavoidable, clearly document the changes made and their rationale within the arrangement text itself.
Dissemination
Ensure that the arrangement text is included with every distribution of your software, whether in binary or code form. Reference the arrangement within your project’s documentation (e.g., README file) to explicitly declare the terms governing its use.
What Are the Key Differences Between BSD and MIT Permissions?
Choose the MIT grant when minimizing boilerplate and maximizing permissiveness is paramount. Select a variant of the Berkeley Software Distribution grant if patent retaliation clauses or specific attribution requirements are desired.
Attribution Differences
Both permissions require retaining the original copyright notice. Berkeley Software Distribution variations may mandate acknowledging the initial developer in promotional material. MIT permissions typically lack this stipulation, offering greater flexibility in derivative work presentation.
Patent Retaliation
Some Berkeley Software Distribution variants incorporate patent retaliation provisions. If a recipient sues the original developer for patent infringement related to the distributed code, their rights under the accord terminate. MIT permissions typically do not include such clauses, increasing the risk of patent-related litigation. Select with caution.
Is the Permissive Copyright Notice Compatible With the GNU Public Permit?
Yes, code under a permissive copyright notice is generally compatible with the GNU Public Permit. You can incorporate code under such terms into a project under the GPL.
However, distributing a modified version of the permissive-termed code under the GPL creates a derivative work. The original permissive permit terms still apply to the original code itself. The new GPL terms only apply to the combined work as a whole.
Key considerations:
| Action | Permitted? | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Incorporating code from a permissive-termed project into a GPL project. | Yes | The GPL is more restrictive than the permissive terms; therefore, it’s allowed. |
| Releasing the entire combined project under the GPL. | Yes | The GPL can govern the aggregate work. |
| Re-releasing the original permissive-termed component under the GPL alone. | Potentially problematic | Potentially violates the original permissive terms, which usually requires retaining the original copyright notice. Consult the specific permissive terms. |
| Distributing the original permissive-termed component separately under its original terms, alongside the GPL-governed combined work. | Yes | Keeps the original term intact. |
Recommendation: Retain the original copyright notice and attribution when using permissive-termed components in a GPL project to avoid potential legal issues.
Where Can I Find the Full Copyright Permission Document?
Obtain the complete copyright permission text directly from the project repository employing it. Look for files usually named COPYING, COPYRIGHT, or LEGAL. Alternatively, consult the project’s homepage or associated documentation. Major code-hosting platforms, like GitHub and GitLab, often display permissions information prominently on project pages.
Many variations of this permission exist. For specific phrasing, refer to the document used by the software in question. Example texts can be found on sites like the Free Software Foundation (FSF) and the Software Package Data Exchange (SPDX) list, but note these may not be the exact wording used by a particular software package.
Q&A:
I’m new to open source. Can you explain the core idea behind the BSD license without using too much legal jargon?
The BSD license, in its simplest form, is about granting you broad freedoms to use, modify, and distribute the software. You can use it for commercial or non-commercial purposes, and you don’t necessarily have to share your modifications back. The main requirement is that you include the original BSD license and copyright notice in your distributions.
What are the key differences between the BSD license and the GPL license? I hear they are both popular but have different philosophies.
The BSD license and the GPL license represent distinct approaches to open source. The GPL is copyleft, meaning that if you distribute a modified version of GPL-licensed software, you must also license your modifications under the GPL. This aims to keep the software and its derivatives open source. In contrast, the BSD license is permissive. It allows you to use the code in proprietary software without needing to open source your modifications. This allows greater flexibility for developers who want to incorporate open source code into closed-source projects.
I want to use some BSD-licensed code in my commercial product. Are there any specific things I need to do to comply with the license?
Yes, there are a few key things you need to do. First, include the original BSD license and copyright notice within your product’s distribution. This usually means including it in a text file or displaying it in the “About” section of your application. Second, make sure you acknowledge the original author(s) and contributors somewhere in your product’s documentation or credits. Beyond that, you are generally free to use, modify, and distribute the code as you see fit, even in a commercial context. The license grants a lot of freedom. It is a good idea to review the specific BSD license used for the particular code you’re using because there are variations.
There seem to be different versions of the BSD license, like the 2-clause and 3-clause versions. What are the main distinctions, and does one provide better protection for the original author?
The primary difference between the 2-clause and 3-clause BSD licenses lies in the advertising clause. The 3-clause license includes a clause that requires you to acknowledge the original author in your advertising materials if you distribute a product based on the licensed software. The 2-clause license removes this advertising clause, making it simpler and shorter. From a pure protection standpoint for the author, the 3-clause license offers slightly stronger attribution. However, the advertising clause has been criticized for potentially being burdensome, which is why the 2-clause license is favored by some.
If I modify BSD-licensed code, am I obligated to submit my changes back to the original project?
No, you are not obligated to contribute your changes back to the original project when using the BSD license. This is a key distinction from copyleft licenses like the GPL. The BSD license allows you to keep your modifications private and use them in proprietary software without any requirement to share them. Of course, contributing back is always encouraged within the open-source community, but the BSD license doesn’t legally require it.
