Questions about the two-clause BSD license

Pimm Hogeling pimmhogeling at
Mon Oct 19 14:18:57 UTC 2009

Again, thanks for the replies!

Dag-Erling Smørgrav:
> Yes, if you can extricate it from the greater package.  You would have
> to be very careful not to inadvertantly include proprietary code.
John Cowan:
> But if all you have is a bag of binary bits, the fact that some of the
> source is BSD-licensed doesn't give you any useful rights, because you
> don't have that source.
I agree that that right is not useful. That's exactly why I don't see
the point in obligating a licensee to give others such right.

Dag-Erling Smørgrav:
> Did you ever stop to think that most people will find it simpler to
> include the copyright and license statement with the binary than to make
> the source code available "in the same way through the same place"?
Yes, obviously including the notice is easier than providing the
source code, and will be less of a problem to proprietary software
developers. However, some developers will provide the source code of
their project, anyway. They will have to do both, since providing the
source code does not excuse the developer from the binary form-clause.
I'm just saying I think doing only one of them is enough, whichever
that is.

More information about the License-discuss mailing list