To swiftly determine if the Revised “Berkeley System Distribution” permission scheme suits your project, begin by examining its core: it grants recipients near-unrestricted rights to utilize, modify, and distribute your software, even commercially. The critical obligation is retaining your original copyright notice and the disclaimer within derivative works’ source code and documentation.
Consider this allowance especially attractive if you desire broad adoption and wish to minimize legal hurdles for downstream users. Unlike more restrictive permissions frameworks, this permissive standard allows integration into proprietary projects without requiring them to also adopt copyleft obligations. For instance, major technology players often favor this approach due to its straightforward nature and minimal impact on their closed-source business models.
However, be mindful that this freedom comes at the cost of limited control. While you retain copyright ownership, you cede significant authority over how others use and build upon your code. Specifically, you cannot prevent them from incorporating your work into closed-source offerings, effectively preventing you from benefiting from improvements they might make. Examine alternatives such as GPL or MIT, if you are seeking some control over the modifications.
Implementing the Modified Simplified permit: Practical Steps
Incorporate the full text of the authorization verbatim into your project’s documentation (e.g., a file named ‘LEGAL’ or ‘COPYING’). Ensure this text clearly articulates the permissions and limitations.
When distributing binaries or other derivative works, include a conspicuous notice acknowledging the original software’s provenance. This notice must feature the original copyright notice, the complete text of the permissions document, and the disclaimer. For example, in a software package, create a ‘NOTICE’ file containing this information.
Modify the copyright notice to reflect your contributions. The original copyright notice should remain intact alongside your additions. Example: “Copyright (c) 2008, Organization A. Copyright (c) 2023, Organization B.”
Distribute source code modifications with clear indication that you altered the code. Document changes in commit messages, changelogs, or dedicated comments within the source files.
Review downstream projects’ compliance. While not legally obligatory, consider monitoring projects that incorporate your software to ensure they properly attribute the initial contribution and adhere to the terms.
What Can You Freely Do With Source Code Under the Modified Permissive Free Source Arrangement?
Distribute copies, modified or not, without royalty payments. Incorporate the code into proprietary software products. Sell these products commercially. Use the code for private or commercial purposes, including building new applications or enhancing existing ones. You can use the code in any way you find useful.
Specific Allowed Actions:
Redistribute the software, whether in source code or binary form. Create derivative works based on the original code. Use the software as part of a larger software package. Change the software, without the obligation to publish your improvements. Sub-arrangement the software’s sub-components under different free arrangements.
Important Condition:
Retain the original copyright notice and disclaimer in any redistributed source code and documentation. This provision grants users freedom while preserving the author’s attribution.
How to Correctly Attribute BSD-Licensed Work?
Include the original copyright notice and the permission notice in all copies or substantial portions of the software. Retain the complete text of the copyright notice, conditions, and disclaimer. Do not remove or alter the notice.
For source code distributions, place the full text of the permission grant in a readily accessible file, often named “COPYING” or “LICENSE”. This file must be distributed with your code.
If distributing binaries, include a text file containing the copyright notice, permission terms, and disclaimer within the distribution package. Reference this file in your documentation or “About” box.
When modifying the original work, acknowledge the original authors. Add a statement clarifying that you have modified the software and detailing the nature of those changes. Maintain the initial authorship details.
Avoid creating ambiguity regarding authorship. Distinguish your modifications from the original work. Clearly indicate the portions created or altered by you.
If using a software package manager, such as npm or Maven, include the copyright information and permission terms within the package’s metadata (e.g., `package.json` or `pom.xml`). Adhere to the package manager’s conventions for specifying copyright and licensing data.
Avoiding Common Pitfalls When Using the Permissive Free Software Arrangement
Specifically state the arrangement’s text verbatim in your distribution. This prevents future ambiguity regarding approved terms.
Include the copyright notice and the “disclaimer of warranty” clause. Omitting these voids the agreement’s intended legal protections.
Clarifying Derivative Works
If your project significantly alters the arrangement-protected code, clearly denote the changes in your own copyright notices. State which portions are newly authored versus derived.
When distributing binaries, provide easily accessible source code (or a clear written offer to provide it). This fulfills the ‘redistribution’ obligation.
Attribution Best Practices
Although not legally mandatory after the initial distribution, providing credit to original authors enhances community goodwill and project sustainability. Consider a dedicated “Acknowledgments” section.
Q&A:
I’m developing a commercial application and want to use a library licensed under the BSD 3-Clause. Are there any restrictions that would prevent me from selling my application?
The BSD 3-Clause license is very permissive and generally allows commercial use without restriction. You are free to use, modify, and distribute the licensed code in your commercial application. The only real requirement is that you retain the original copyright notice and the license text in your distribution. You also can’t use the name of the original licensor to endorse or promote your product without prior written permission. So, you can sell your application without owing any royalties or needing to open-source any part of your own code. It’s advisable to consult with an attorney for specific advice related to your project.
What’s the difference between the BSD 3-Clause and the MIT license, and why might someone choose one over the other?
Both the BSD 3-Clause and MIT licenses are very permissive open-source licenses, making them suitable for many similar situations. The main difference is the “no endorsement” clause in the BSD 3-Clause license. This clause prohibits you from using the name of the original author or institution to promote your derivative work without explicit permission. The MIT license doesn’t have this specific restriction. Some developers prefer the MIT license for its simplicity and lack of endorsement restrictions. Others might favor the BSD 3-Clause license because they want to have more control over how their name or the name of their institution is associated with derivative works. Practically, the “no endorsement” clause is infrequently an obstacle, but it is something to consider.
If I modify code licensed under the BSD 3-Clause, am I obligated to make my changes public or open-source my own project?
No, you are not obligated to release your modifications or open-source your project if you use BSD 3-Clause licensed code. You can modify the code and incorporate it into a proprietary or closed-source application without being required to share your changes. The BSD 3-Clause license only requires that you retain the original copyright notice and license text within your distribution, meaning that the original license applies to the component licensed under BSD 3-Clause, not to your additions or changes.
