How does the 3-clause BSD license apply to LaTeX and PDF's?

Question

I've found a nice resume template written in LaTeX, and it has the BSD 3-clause license. In my thinking, BSD makes perfect sense for executable code, but we are talking about a document here, and I feel that a Creative Commons license would have been clearer. Therefore, I have questions about how to approach this.

For the purposes of this discussion, I'd like to differentiate between the "class" (the code the actual template relies on for all its elements), and the template (the code where it is intended that the author insert their own resume details).

• What constitutes a redistribution in binary form for clause 2?

  • Intuitively, I think that a PDF is not considered a binary in the software sense, as it is not executable, but a document. Under this interpretation, there is no binary to redistribute. Is this a correct interpretation?
  • Let's say I am incorrect. Since the license says "with or without modification", if I put my own details in the template, and generate a PDF for my resume, have I effectively redistributed the "binary"? Do I need to provide the copyright notice and the list of conditions and disclaimer to any potential employers I give my resume to?
  • Does the answer to the above question change at all if I needed to modify the class to alter the appearance of some elements, instead of just inserting my own content? I don't think it does, but it'd be nice to make that explicit.

• How does clause 1 apply if I reimplement the class or some subset of it in a different language (for example, Typst), along with different content in an example template?

  • I am thinking that I am not redistributing the source code, nor a modification of the source, but new source that generates documents of a similar design. (To me, the typesetting languages in question are different enough that reading the original source doesn't help in this process.) Therefore, the new source code is not a modified redistribution of the original source code, nor is it a redistribution of the "binary" for the purposes of clause 2. Is this a correct interpretation?
  • If I am correct, then I think that the BSD license doesn't actually apply to what I'm intending to do, and therefore, I can include my own copyright notice, and choose my own open license.
  • If I am incorrect:
    • Am I allowed to instead use the BSD 3-clause plus attribution license? My theory here is that the BSD 3-clause license says I have to include the list of conditions, but does not say I cannot include another condition.
    • Can I include my own copyright notice, in addition to the one I must include, in the BSD 3-clause, or BSD 3-clause plus attribution license?

• The BSD 3-clause license does not require attribution. However, if I choose to make attribution, say, in the README of my repository, could that be interpreted as using the name of the author to promote my own work, and violate clause 3?

• Assuming I'm right on every front so far, and BSD doesn't really apply to my intended actions, there's still that copyright notice in the original repository. Does that mean I'm still violating copyright law in general?

Answers regarding Australian law would be preferred, but similar western nations could be helpful too.

Answer 1

What constitutes a redistribution in binary form for clause 2?

The BSD license does not specify the meaning of "binary form", so normally you would then turn to an English dictionary for the meaning. However, all the open-source licenses that do specify what is meant by "binary form" invariably define it as "any form that is not the source code form" and I can easily see a judge applying that same definition for the licenses that don´t explicitly define the term.

That means that your PDF format would be a "binary form".

Do I need to provide the copyright notice and the list of conditions and disclaimer to any potential employers I give my resume to?

Assuming that the template itself is licensed under the BSD license, then yes. The easiest way is to include it in a small typeface at the end of the document.

Does the answer to the above question change at all if I needed to modify the class to alter the appearance of some elements, instead of just inserting my own content? I don't think it does, but it'd be nice to make that explicit.

No, it doesn´t.

How does clause 1 apply if I reimplement the class or some subset of it in a different language (for example, Typst), along with different content in an example template?

If you refer to the original template while writing your own version, you will be hard pressed to argue before a judge that it is not a derivative work, even if the two implementation languages are very dissimilar.

Am I allowed to instead use the BSD 3-clause plus attribution license? My theory here is that the BSD 3-clause license says I have to include the list of conditions, but does not say I cannot include another condition.

Yes. You need to comply with the terms of the BSD license, but you can add any additional terms you like. That is not just an attribution term, but you can even use a closed-source proprietary license for your work and the result of modifying the original.

Can I include my own copyright notice, in addition to the one I must include, in the BSD 3-clause, or BSD 3-clause plus attribution license?

Yes. If you made more than insignificant changes, you are always entitled to add your own copyright notice to the existing notices.

The BSD 3-clause license does not require attribution. However, if I choose to make attribution, say, in the README of my repository, could that be interpreted as using the name of the author to promote my own work, and violate clause 3?

No, just acknowledging the work of the original author(s) does not put you at risk with clause 3.

You cannot write that the author(s) of the original have a certain opinion of your repository or that your repository is the best because of it being based on the BSD work.