Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 175 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow, the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Visit Stack Exchange

Hot answers tagged

62

When talking about BSD license, you have to be aware that there is not one, but actually three different BSD licenses. The most basic is the two-clause BSD license: Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: Redistributions of source code must ...


19

Not with the license as it is. You will need to contact all the licensors of the GPL code, and request that they release it to you in a license that is compatible with the BSD license. Alternatively, you can release your code as GPL too.


14

First of all: There are three different BSD-licenses. The original BSD-license has four clauses, including a advertisement-clause. This advertisement-clause is incompatible with the GPL, so you cannot redistribute it as GPL, the same as you cannot combine it with GPL-code. The modified BSD-licenses drop this clause and make BSD compatible with GPL. This ...


14

If the BSD license in question is the two- or three-clause variant (i.e. without the advertising clause), I think you're technically allowed to do it, but you couldn't really enforce it: anyone who obtained a copy of the code you're distributing could re-use the BSD-licensed code under the provisions of the BSD license only, and the GPL wouldn't apply. (The ...


12

No, you cannot. By including GPL-code, you are including a dependency of GPL-protected code, and therefore your code is only derived work from it. The terms of GPL requires that derived work is also published under GPL. From the GPL faq: If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean that any program which uses it has to be under ...


11

Because adding that phrase turns the license into a viral copyleft license not unlike the GPL. When you add that phrase, you could just as well use the GPL. Those who propose the BSD over the GPL usually do so because they intentionally want to avoid the viral nature of the GPL and instead want their work to be usable by anyone under any license. The ...


11

If you wrote the code yourself, then you're the licensor and can use the code as you see fit, however: GPL does not allow sub-licensing; If you used code from other sources (for example, Stack Overflow), you'll need to attribute the code used, and review the license the code uses if the author/owner needs to give their express permission; If you released ...


11

If you wrote the code, you can do whatever you want with it. You own the code, you own the copyright. A license is you granting others certain rights, but as the author you have not given up any of your own. What you (probably) can't do is then turn around and take legal action against someone who's still using your code under the terms of the old license (...


10

BSD-3 clause is a very permissive license that does not require you disclosing your source code or the source code of the open source libraries. You are not required to allow your users to re-distribute the binaries either. You are required to display any copyright statements from the BSD licensed libraries, and you are required to display the BSD license ...


9

Theo de Raadt is wrong. Plain and simple. The BSD is a permissive license which allows to incorporate the licensed work under a different license, no matter if permissive, copyleft or proprietary. That's the point of using a permissive license. When the original authors of OpenBSD didn't want this to happen, they shouldn't have used the BSD license in the ...


9

If you adapt a file, you have to satisfy the licensing requirements for that file, whatever your changes and whatever the licensing requirements. If the module only specifies Copyright ... and BSD, I'd start by seeking clarification from the original author, since there are different versions of the BSD license (two-clause, three-clause and the obsolete four-...


9

Yes, BSD-licensed code is free for anyone to use for any purpose. You don't need to disclose the license in your thesis. As @MadHatter pointed out, if you were to include the source of the program in your thesis, say as an appendix, you would need to include the license in that. You should of course give credit as you would for any resource that you use, ...


9

Your understanding is incorrect. Patents are intellectual property rights that exist to protect an invention. They are distinct from copyrights, which protect the expression of an idea. Inventions protected by patents can have a software component (or in some cases be completely covered by software). The additional text in the BSD-3-Clause-Clear license ...


9

The GPL does not normally require licence holders to put any special acknowledgments in their advertising material. GPLv3 s7 says that any of six additional restrictions may be added to the normal requirements of the GPL, and none of these relate to advertising material. It then goes on: All other non-permissive additional terms are considered “further ...


8

You can legally relicense under conditions compatible with the original license (meaning most forms of the BSD license will allow relicensing under the GPL). It just carries very little meaning for an unchanged source since only one of the actual copyright holders has standing to enforce the license. So tell Theo de Raadt that you relicensed under the GPL ...


8

Two licenses are compatible if it is possible to satisfy both licenses at the same time. The GPLv2 states: You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. From this it may be argued that further restrictions are allowed if they do not limit recipient's rights. The 1st and 2nd BSD clauses (retaining ...


7

BSD and MIT licenses are very similar, essentially they are "do anything you want" licenses with a single requirement to include the license text and attribution to the original author somewhere that can be found easily. Since you've got three licenses (MIT, Modified BSD, NewBSD) you will need to include all three of those licenses as well as acknowledgment ...


7

The only attribution required by BSD is to maintain the copyright/license statement within your sources, but if you aren't distributing the code you don't even need to do that (although you should, in case years from now you or your heirs want to transfer the software to someone else). As @Philipe Ombredanne pointed out, redistributions of BSD-3 licensed ...


7

It's always a good idea to include copyright information when using someone else's work. I'm not a lawyer, but here is my understanding: Do I have to include the entire license in my GitHub repository? It depends. If you upload the source or binary of this third party library into your GitHub repository, then the answer is yes. If you are not uploading ...


7

You cannot license the work as a whole under CC0. You do not have the ability to commit other authors' work to the public domain or remove an author's requirement that distribution of their work includes attribution. You can release your own code under CC0, and include that code in a derivative work that also includes MIT/BSD-licensed code from other ...


7

Not only is requirement one not in conflict with the GNU GPL, the GPL requires it also. See, eg, GNU GPL3 s4: You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice [...] keep intact all notices stating that this ...


6

The key here is relicensing. You absolutely can incorporate BSD code to a GPL project as long as you comply with the license (giving credit where credit is due), but under no circumstance can you arbitrarily relicense it without the permission of the original copyright holder like Philipp here is saying. Not only would that be illegal, it most definitely ...


6

The 4 clause BSD license is not OpenSource compliant as it contains two contradicting claims: All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors. Neither the name of the University nor the ...


6

There are a couple of problems with the advertisement clause — the most obvious one can be witnessed firsthand at http://BXR.SU/NetBSD/distrib/notes/common/legal.common: This product includes software developed by Charles Hannum. .It This product includes software developed by Charles M. Hannum, by the University of Vermont and State Agricultural ...


6

The first part is looking at where the licenses are applied. CC BY (and -SA) are mostly applied to creative works: things such as pictures, text, music and video. Whereas the BSD is applied to source code. The issue that you make note of is with attribution. So how do we attribute with both licenses? With the Creative Commons license we simply need to ...


6

[obvious disclaimer - I am not a lawyer] A common practice I've seen is to add an additional file, e.g. NOTICE.txt with references to other projects being used. For example, take a look at Apache Commons Lang (yes, I know it doesn't use the MIT license, it's just a really simple example for this practice, which holds for various licenses). It has a NOTICE....


5

In what sense is this language "no longer necessary". Is this protection implicit because of some other statute or agreement? Generally, names are (best) protected through trademarks and some name protection is implicit in some jurisdictions, which is the reason why the non-endorsement clause in the "BSD-3" and several other licenses (Apache) is often felt ...


5

tl;dr: Be as clear as you can be, to avoid confusion for re-users. When you take a file from one project, and inject it in to another, you are creating a combined work and/or a derivative work (depending on the amount of coupling between them). This is not a problem. The general gist of things is answered well at Combining code written under different ...


5

You can certainly try. Instead of including the entire license, you could have this: Copyright (c) 2016 Thomas Owens. All rights reserved. This work is licensed under the terms of the MIT license. For a copy, see <https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT>. In theory (IANAL), this should stand up in court, since you're still making it pretty obvious how ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible