BSD-3-Clause · Permissive
Permissive and functionally close to MIT, with an added clause preventing use of the project or contributor names to endorse derived products without permission.
The same license produces different obligations depending on whether the software is distributed, hosted, or kept internal. This is the distinction most dependency scanners collapse.
| How you ship it | Result | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Hosted SaaS | No obligation | BSD-3-Clause requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation. |
| Distributed binary / app | No obligation | BSD-3-Clause requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation. |
| Delivered to customer | No obligation | BSD-3-Clause requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation. |
| Internal use only | No obligation | BSD-3-Clause requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation. |
| Published library | No obligation | BSD-3-Clause requires retaining the copyright notice and the license text. There is no source-disclosure obligation. |
Attribution
As a build-time dependency it is a different question.
BSD-3-Clause appears as a dev dependency, so it is not part of the artifact you ship. Distribution-triggered obligations do not arise. Tools that emit code into your output, such as code generators, are a separate case worth checking individually.
Want to know whether anything in your project is under BSD-3-Clause?
Check your whole manifest →LicenseGuard reports information derived from published license texts and dependency manifests. It is not legal advice and using it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Results reflect license metadata as declared; they do not identify every obligation or violation. Consult qualified counsel for decisions that matter.