So what does the FreeBSD license (dis)allow?

[ShelLuser]

Hi gang,

In the "troll blog thread" the topic eventually shifted to a point where the author of said blog mentioned how the FreeBSD license (also called the BSD 2-Clause license) allowed for distributing binaries without making the source code available.

The license template says the following:

Copyright (c) <YEAR>, <OWNER>
All rights reserved.

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 retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
    Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

My interpretation of the above license is that redistribution is only allowed when both binary and source code are made available. I conclude as such from this particular sentence: "Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:".

The other reason why I'm inclined to come to this conclusion is because this license has also been accepted by the Open Source Initiative ("OSI") as a valid open source license, this can be seen here. One of the demands the O.S.I. puts on a license before it is accepted is that it should always make the source code available.

While the binary can be shipped without the source code there is no way a binary may be shipped without providing the source code in some way, these specific definitions can be read here.

So quite frankly I'm curious what you guys think of all this?

Now, I'm aware of some of the advocacy available already which basically starts a comparison between the FreeBSD license and the Gnu Public License ("GPL"). Because of that document I now also come to realize that as soon as you pick up software which has been licensed under the BSD license one can use this software and then re-license it, possibly under a more restrictive license.

I'm also well aware that these topics have most likely been discussed endless of times. But I figured that I could easily dump it here, we can always simply ignore the thread

 

[DutchDaemon]

The license states that you can do with the source code or a binary whatever you like, as long as you retain the copyright notice, i.e. "don't claim you wrote it". It says nothing about how the distribution takes place or what must be included in it. You can bury a binary in an embedded system without source code, but the binary should retain the copyright notice.

 

[wblock@]

Two things:

First, I think you're putting too much emphasis on the "and". It is a little ambiguous, but given that binary-only distributions have taken place already, like the Windows 95 TCP/IP code, it seems fairly clear that the license allows it.

Second: while anyone can redistribute and use the code, only the owner of the copyright or license can change the terms.

An interesting link from the Wikipedia page: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/articles/bsdl-gpl/article.html.