Open Source Meta
Open Source Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people organizing, marketing or licensing open source development projects. It only takes a minute to sign up.
If I add a misrepresentation clause to 3-clause BSD license would it remain GPL-compatible?
Asked 1 month ago
Modified 1 month ago
I would like to ask whether an otherwise standard 3-clause BSD license would remain GPL compatible if the following 4th clause is added:
Altered versions (source code and/or binary) must be plainly marked as such, and must not be misrepresented as being the original software.
license-compatibility
user28612user28612
Yes, such a license would be compatible with GPL-3.0. In particular, the GPL already has the following terms:
Section 5(a) is always required:
The GPL-3.0 allows certain additional terms to be added to the license. One of these is section 7(c):
Prohibiting misrepresentation of the origin of that material, or requiring that modified versions of such material be marked in reasonable ways as different from the original version
But if you're looking for a permissive license with such terms that is GPL-3.0 compatible, consider just using the Apache-2.0 license.
Section 4(b):
You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating that You changed the files
Misrepresentation of origin is forbidden implicitly through section 6, but it's only enforceable if you have a trademark:
This License does not grant permission to use the trade names, trademarks, service marks, or product names of the Licensor, except as required for reasonable and customary use in describing the origin of the Work and reproducing the content of the NOTICE file.
If you create a custom license, please give it a custom name, and do not call it "BSD-something". This also makes it easier for people to understand that your license would not have been FSF- or OSI-approved (even though I'm sure that it is compatible with the Free Software Definition and the Open Source Definition).
amonamon
36.4k11 gold badge8080 silver badges103103 bronze badges
I don't believe this is quite correct. Section 5(a) of GPL-3.0 is a limitation on conveyance of the work only. His proposed clause (the first part, not the second) is a limitation on modification of the work whether conveyed or not. I don't see why that wouldn't be a sufficient difference to make his license not compatiable with the GPL because it is an additional restriction.
– David Schwartz
@DavidSchwartz That is an excellent point. I didn't notice that OP's clause, as phrased, would apply to unpublished modifications. However, I'm not sure if that subtlety was OP's intention.
– amon
Probably not. The point is that the OP can get what they want without breaking GPL compatibility as long as the wording is careful not to go beyond what the GPL requires. But this does point out how dangerous it is to try to craft your own license. Not only can little details bite you but you also have the problem of convincing others that they can rely on it.
@DavidSchwartz The clause is mostly taken from the zlib license, which is GPL compatible. The main difference is that the zlib license only requires modified source code to include modification notices while I require both modified source and binary distributions to include it as well.
I asked my own question.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Open Source Stack Exchange!
Why is the zlib license GPL-compatible
Why don't BSD developers use the SSLeay addendum if they hate GPL?
Is Stack Exchange's CC-BY-SA v3.0 content compatible with the GPL?
Is the Facebook BSD+Patents licence (aka "The React Licence") compatible with the GPL?
How is the BSD GPL-compatible?
Can I combine GPLv2 and BSD-3-Clause code and keep the BSD permissions?
Why does the clause 3 of 4-clause BSD makes it incompatible with GPL?
GPL compatible alternative to LPPL?
Is AGPL Compatible with GPL for the purposes of BSL License Change
Open sourcing code using SLA0044 libraries (STmicroelectronics license)