License guide · Permissive
BSD-3-Clause, in plain English
BSD-3-Clause is permissive and safe for commercial, proprietary software. For practical purposes it behaves like MIT: use it, modify it, ship it closed-source, keep your own code private. The one thing it adds is the no-endorsement clause — you may not use the authors’ names to promote your product. That is a marketing restriction, not a restriction on shipping the code.
Updated 31 Jul 2026 · by the depproof team
General information, not legal advice. The controlling text is the license itself as shipped with the dependency. Primary source: the BSD 3-Clause License at the Open Source Initiative.
The three clauses
The license permits redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, subject to three conditions:
- 1 — Source redistributions must retain the copyright notice, the list of conditions, and the warranty disclaimer.
- 2 — Binary redistributions must reproduce the same three things in the documentation or other materials shipped with the distribution. This is the clause that makes a third-party notices file necessary for a compiled or bundled product.
- 3 — No endorsement. The copyright holder’s name and the names of contributors may not be used to endorse or promote products derived from the software without prior written permission.
Clauses 1 and 2 are the ordinary permissive bargain. Clause 3 is what makes it “3-Clause”, and it is the only meaningful difference from BSD-2-Clause, which omits it.
Can you…? The BSD-3-Clause decision at a glance
| Can you… | Under BSD-3-Clause? |
|---|---|
| Use it in closed-source, proprietary commercial software | Yes |
| Sell a product that includes it | Yes |
| Modify it and keep your modifications private | Yes |
| Run it as a SaaS without disclosing anything | Yes — no network clause |
| Ship a binary without reproducing the notice in your docs | No — clause 2 requires it |
| Say “built with” and name the authors in your marketing | No — not without prior written permission |
| Rely on an express patent grant | No — BSD is silent on patents |
| Combine it into a GPL project | Yes — BSD-3-Clause is GPL-compatible |
The clause that actually catches people
It is not clause 3 — endorsement rarely comes up. It is clause 2. The requirement to reproduce the notice “in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution” applies to binary redistribution, which is what most commercial products ship. A container image, a bundled JavaScript file, a compiled binary or a mobile app all count, and none of them carry source headers.
So the compliance artifact BSD-3-Clause actually demands is the same one MIT and Apache-2.0 demand: a generated third-party notices file, produced from what is genuinely in your dependency tree rather than maintained by hand.
A note on BSD-4-Clause
The original BSD-4-Clause included an advertising clause requiring that all advertising material mention the software’s origin. It is not GPL-compatible and is widely considered obsolete — the clause was formally rescinded for the original Berkeley code in 1999. BSD-4-Clause still appears occasionally in long-lived C libraries deep in a dependency tree, and it is worth flagging distinctly from its modern successors if your policy cares about GPL compatibility.
- Check your npm dependency licenses — classify every direct and transitive package from the lockfile.
- Check your Maven dependency licenses — the full transitive tree, with no build.
- The license guide — plain-English pages for every family, from permissive through copyleft.
Frequently asked questions
Is BSD-3-Clause safe for commercial use?
Yes. BSD-3-Clause is a permissive, OSI-approved license that allows redistribution and use in source and binary form, including inside closed-source commercial products, with or without modification. There is no copyleft and no obligation to publish your own source. The conditions are to retain the copyright notice, license conditions and disclaimer in source and in binary documentation, and to observe the no-endorsement clause.
What is the third clause in BSD-3-Clause?
The third clause is the no-endorsement provision: neither the name of the copyright holder nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from the software without specific prior written permission. It is a trademark-flavoured restriction on marketing, not a restriction on use — you can ship the code freely, you just cannot imply the authors back your product.
What is the difference between BSD-2-Clause and BSD-3-Clause?
BSD-3-Clause is BSD-2-Clause plus the no-endorsement clause. BSD-2-Clause (sometimes called "Simplified BSD" or "FreeBSD License") keeps only the retention-of-notice conditions and the warranty disclaimer. Both are permissive and both are treated the same way by most dependency policies; the practical difference is limited to whether you may use contributor names in promotion.
What is the difference between BSD-3-Clause and MIT?
They are functionally near-identical for engineering purposes: both permissive, both requiring only that notices be preserved, both silent on patents. BSD-3-Clause states the no-endorsement restriction explicitly, and spells out that the notice must be reproduced in binary-form documentation as well as source. MIT is shorter and leaves the endorsement question unstated. For dependency policy they normally belong in the same bucket.
Does BSD-3-Clause grant patent rights?
No. Like MIT, BSD-3-Clause is a copyright license and contains no express patent grant. If an explicit patent license matters to your risk posture, Apache-2.0 is the permissive license that provides one, along with a defensive termination clause.
Is BSD-3-Clause compatible with the GPL?
Yes. BSD-3-Clause is GPL-compatible: its conditions impose nothing the GPL forbids, so BSD-licensed code can be incorporated into a GPL project, with the combined work distributed under the GPL. This is true of both BSD-2-Clause and BSD-3-Clause. The older BSD-4-Clause, with its advertising clause, is the one that is not GPL-compatible.
General information, not legal advice; confirm specific decisions with counsel.