The original author grants permission under BSD and GPL. They own copyright on the original, so they could put it out under a third license (MPL) or even close the source sell it if they want. They are the original copyright holder, they can do what they want.
If I download the code licensed under the GPL or BSD, I can make modifications. I can choose to release my mods under BSD, GPL, or both. This is due to the way the dual license was worded, with an alternative licensing scheme. I see no reason to reach that conclusion. Under the BSD license, you can enforce your own copyrights however you want. You can place it under the GPL, MPL, reserve all rights, whatever. You don't need the dual licensing wording to do this. The point is that they are your own copyrights.
If I license my mods under GPL using a "GPL version" of the original code, the original author is stuck. They can't put that into BSD codebase, since BSD allows for closing of the code and selling it. GPL does not. So if someone makes a derivative work and releases it GPL, they have effectively forked the code, so there is the orginal dual-license code and the new GPL only code. I see no reason to reach this conclusion either. Your modifications may be under the GPL but you don't automatically gain any copyrights to the original author's work.
This is not much different from a company taking a BSD version of the code, making mods, closing it and selling it. Both are legal and expected for BSD and GPL. This is something I agree with. I just don;t think dual licensing has anything to do with it.
First, for the most part, I think that Eben is quite familiar with copyright law in general. I do disagree with him on this particular issue: How do you read the BSD license?
One thing to note is that I live ina state which is under the 9th Circuit, and this court has a history of reading sublicensing rights very narrowly even to the surprise of most observers (see "Gardner v. Nike" and do some research into the legal commentary relating to this case) I don't think I have the luxury of assuming that the BSD license carries such an implied sublicense right (the MIT license does but it is moot).
I think that the key is that the BSD License does not provide any requirement that derivative works carry the same licnese. Furthermore the history of allowing and discussing closed source derivations would, I think, undermine such an argument pretty quickly if it came down to a question of intent. IANAL though.
Now, I could see an argument being made to this effect, but generally, I can't imagine one making a serious argument to this effect without ignoring the historical use of the license.
Nevertheless, the BSD license only applies to the original BSD code, not to any modifications. So, the original code is under BSD, the modifications are under whatever license the author of the modifications chooses, and the combined work can only be copied by complying with both licenses. That is also my understanding, The BSD license does not preclude you from enforcing your *own* copyrights however you choose.
Effectively, that means that people can basically put whatever additional restrictions they like on BSD code and distribute it with those additional restrictions. The fact that the recipient has the original BSD rights to the original BSD code doesn't matter much since the recipient can't realistically separate the BSD from the non-BSD code without actually having obtained a copy of the original BSD-licensed code separately. That is again my understanding with an important caveat:
To do this one must have a valid copyright to the code one wishes to restrict. Minor editorial/formatting changes (and correcting typos) do not count.
1) Lawyers are sometimes wrong. I have seen people get into serious trouble because of bad legal advice. 2) When a lawyer is wring, you have very little recourse.
So, the question is not about what I think or what Eben thinks. It is what a judge would decide if a case came down to it. In essence the question is what the law is. (and bad legal advice is no excuse in the eyes of the law.) Hence everyone should do what they can to understand the laws that affect them.
Also I am not saying that Eben is generally wrong about copyright matters. Most of the details he has provided to me about how copyright works even in an international setting have been accurate and insightful. We just disagree about the interpretation of the BSD License and whether it follows the licensed code. While this disagreement is critical in cases like the Atheros driver spat, and in questions of GPL3 compatibility, it is moot for most other sorts of questions.
My major point is that people should seek assistance from a real and unbiased attourney. I am not a real attourney and Mr Moglen is not exactly unbiased.
(Note that the danger of bias is that it can tilt one's interpretation of finer points in unteneble directions. Not that someone will be wrong about most cases, but just that it increases the odds of a dangerous bit of advice being issued.)
Is the original author giving the right to anyone who comes into posession of the code the right to use either license? In which case you can't deny downstream users the right to choose the license you don't like.
Or is the original author giving *you* the right to sublicense the work uner another license? In which case you can.
This is a *very* context-specific question. IANAL, but I don't think there is a safe answer, and I would err on the side of not removing hte license.
* Although the BSD community has no problem at with BSD code hidden in a msft binary, they get their panties all in a wad about BSD code put into Linux. This one is wrong. It has nothing to do with including the driver in Linux and everything to do with reaching into the copyright license for the driver and changing it. Note that Microsoft does *not* do this.
If this is a blanket offer of copyright permissions to anyone who comes into posession of the code, then no, one cannot strip the license. One would have to follow either both sets of permissions *or* the BSD License (since it offers basically a superset of actual rights granted by the GPL).
If the license is saying that it allows for sublicensing under the GPL, then it allows someone to essentially put a notice at the top which states that this copy is GPL-only by virtue of sublicense.
IANAL, though, and if this matters then you should discuss this with a real and unbiased attourney.
Even if it were dual licensed, the fact is that the legitimate copyright owner (only) can control the terms of redistribution. Although IANAL, I would hesitate to remove a license notice by any copyright holder, regardless of the plurality of licenses.
Heck, even if I did upgrade a license to GPL v3+ from GPL v2+ I would still include a notice that some parts were licensed under the older license. I don't think I have to say which parts those are, however.
I am not saying this is legal or not. I am saying it seems questionable to my mind.
Again, IANAL. If this point matters to you, your safest bet is to hire a real and an unbiased attourney.
The right to sublicense is a very special right under copyright law, and my reading of cases like Gardner v. Nike are that courts are very conservative in allowing for sublicensing due to the fear of an accused infringer being harrassed by multiple successive lawsuits.
In short, the BSD license offers you a set of rights (redistribute software, prepare additional works, etc) and limits those to certain conditions (notices of permissions which must be included and the like). If a right is not granted by the BSD license, then it is not granted regardless of how those relate to the permissions issued. I would therefore note:
1) Nonexclusive licenses are indivisible and almost never (in copyright) allow for implied sublicense rights. This is pretty uncontroversial.
2) The BSD, ISC, and similar licenses offer a notice which provide, directly from the author, the right to anyone who obtains the software the rights to use the code under the terms of that license. This does not extend to added elements in derivative works, but does extend to every element of the code as licensed by the author under the BSD license. Hence Microsoft can use BSD licensed code in Windows because the University of California gave them permission to do so, but Microsoft does not have the right to change the rights on the copyrighted elements of the code they used with permission.
Hence no sublicensing right is required to excersize the other rights granted in the license.
FWIW, Eben Moglen disagrees with me, though I haven't yet gotten any objections to my reasoning which invalidate my conclusion from him. So again, take it for what its worth and with the appropriate shipment of salt. However, I would note that no BSD licensors I have talked to agree with Moglen that the intent of the license allows sublicensing.
My opinion doesn't matter. It is a set of concerns and how I see them.
Eben may have more information, but his opinion ultimately doesn't matter.
The only opinions that matter are those of the judges.
In the end, if you are hiring an attourney to keep you safe, get one whose only agenda is keeping yu safe. And learn the principles involved to the best of your ability. And as with medicine, if in doubt, get a second opinion or play it safe.
Note the conditional in my statement. We don't have access to every email exchanged.
However, some of the emails Theo has released could be read as such a threat. I don't know if this was intended as such, but I can see how Mr Moglen could have come to that conclusion.
However, if you read the GPL v3 closely, the BSD License may be incompatible with section 7 of that license (which allows the removal of additional permissions when the software is *distributed* but not necessarily modified), see paragraph 2 of section 7.
Most people, at least in the West, do believe that this form of speech should be protected absolutely. However, the simple fact of the matter is that many of them also sincerely believe, after mature consideration, that there exist other forms of speech that should be restricted. You've identified several of them yourself -- terrorist manuals, holocaust denial, and suchlike. There are some other obvious ones you haven't mentioned; so-called "hate speech", for example, which is now already illegal in many Western democracies. I am actually opposed to anti-hate-speech laws, and laws which ban holocaust denial and the like. Terrorist manuals are another case and I oppose banning them on yet other grounds.
None of these relate to some abstract undeniable right to say whatever you want. Clearly the freedom of speech is the right to dissent. And although a strong case can be made that hate-speech is a form of dissent especially when criminalized, my own case against this does not rely on this premise. (However, in the US, hate speech is protected as a form of dissent, see Brandenburg v. Ohio. IANAL though.)
Hate speech laws are ostensibly passed in order to help people get along together in a diverse community. Those laws however do impinge upon one fundamental right in a democracy: The right to equal protection under the law.
The reason is that hate speech laws are fundamentally impossible to apply properly across the board. In particular laws which are designed to protect a few specific minority groups (such as holocaust denial laws) do not provide equal protection for everyone. Some groups (particularly Jews, in part because they are both an ethnic and a religious group and so tend to get the benefits of both sets of protections) tend to benefit while other groups (for example, Arabs and Muslims) tend to be discriminated against.
As for terrorism manuals, I think that these should not be banned, but not for any reason other than pure practicality. Such manuals offer security personnel unparalleled opportunities to keep up on likely tactics by terrorists and thus help do their jobs. Hence terrorist manuals have plenty of legitimate uses in line with ensuring public safety. The arguments for allowing terrorism manuals to be published are the same for allowing or even endorsing full disclosure of software security problems.
They shouldn't care about *my* opinion by itself. They should care about the *law.* If it is an issue, they should discuss this matter with an attourney without an agenda.
And BTW, I have made a decision *not* to upgrade certain projects of mine (LedgerSMB is a group project and not my own decision alone) to the GPL v3 because I depend on BSD-licensed software and I believe that the GPL v3 (as Mr Moglen has confirmed) requires the ability to relicense most dependencies under the GPL v3 with no additional permission. I have even gone as far as to ask the dependency authors whether they intend the license to allow that sort of license change, and done serious research into when implied sublicense rights are granted.
Again, IANAL. If the answer matters, discuss the concerns with a *real* and *unbiased* attourney. I am not a *real* attourney, and I do not believe mr Moglen is *unbiased* so I would rather people take both opinions with appropriate shipments of salt.
My legal opinion is relevant because if I make a mistake and violate someone else's copyrights based on legal advice from Moglen and others, I am the one who is liable, not them. They would probably not even be liable for malpractice unless I could show that they were intentionally wrong.
My main recommendation for any developers is to seek legal advice from people who are outside the FOSS community.
I don't think there is any question at all. The work as a whole license needs not be the same as the excerpt licnese.
Also I agree that the copyright notices were probably prematurely altered. A safer approach might be to use language like:
"Portions may be copyright (2007) so-and-so.
So-and-so has added this notice here because he/she intends to make changes to the software and release those changes under [insert license here]. Please do not count on this file as being entirely original to the author and, if in doubt, contact the author below for a copy of his source code under the original BSD license."
Who is granting the rights? WHo is the recipient of those rights? On what basis can this be superceded other than by adding copyrighted elements of one's own to enforce independantly of those used with the permission of this license? IANAL....
BTW, I agree with Theo on his interpretation of the BSD License as one which does not allow sublicensing. I think that Mr Moglen and others are factually wrong as to the nature of the license. But IANAL.
However, if Theo threatened to sue Mr Moglen or anyone else over these sorts of things, this is not helpful either. It is exceedingly difficult to sue lawyers for malpractice on the basis of his/her opinions and representation strategy (I suppose if a lawyer, say, goes on vacation instead of representing you at your trial that might be another thing). We should assume that all mistakes are honest until proven otherwise.
To be fair, the GPL doesn't guarantee patch trickle-down either. Nobody may be inclined to build patches, or they may keep them for private deployments.
You can add the GPL to it if you like. It's allowed. You CANNOT do what the Linux people did and then REMOVE the BSD license from the code. The code remains licensed under the BSD license. Any changes you make can be other another license, but the original BSD license and attribution MUST be kept. I agree with both you and Theo, that one can only add the GPL when one adds elements subject to one's own copyrights. The BSD license is a license grant by the original authors to anyone who comes into posession of the code.
Seems pretty clear to me, you can do whatever the hell you want under the BSD license except remove the copyright notice, or fail to produce the copyright notice in binaries. Of course you can't assert copyright either over the code.
This means you can prepare derivative works under any license, but you can't assert that the new license covers the code you are merely using with permission.
You may want to take a look at my journal entry about BSD/GPL3 compatibility concerns then. I respect people who want to allow people to use their work under any license.
However, the GPL3 grants them the right to restrict downstream permissions on your code without asserting any copyrights of their own over the affected code. You may want to think about this issue somewhat and talk about it with your lawyer (ideally one outside the FOSS community so you can be sure there is no bias) and consider adding a sublicensing provision or a dual license provision.
IANAL, TINLA, Please speak about these concerns with your attourney if the answers matter.
If you released something under the BSD license and someone made a closed-source commercial program out of it (as allowed under the BSD license and done many times by many companies), would you be incensed? If so, why would you release something under a license that allows others to do something you don't want?
The current 3 clause BSD license allows someone to release derived works under the GPL (or under closed-source commercial license). If you don't like that, then don't use the 3 clause BSD license. Licenses have specific meaning that should be understood before they are used. Ok, I think you are mischaracterizing the dispute. I don't think that anyone disagrees about the BSD license allowing for derivatives under the GPL v2 (see my latest journal entry why I don't think this applies to the GPL v3).
The large issue has to do with whether the BSD license allows for sublicensing (i.e for a licensee to offer a portion of his/her rights to a downstream licensee as a separate license). I personally don't think it does. Instead, I see the BSD license as a direct grant of rights to anyone who gets a copy of the source code.
In the case of a derivative work, nothing here prevents you from enforcing your own copyrights in any way you see fit (as long as you obey the terms of the BSD License). However, you cannot dictate to other people what terms govern the code which was provided to you under a nonexclusive BSD license. This is actually a big difference. Mr Moglen is on record saying that he thinks that the BSD license allows for this sort of sublicensing, and I disagree.
Slashdot Mirror
If I download the code licensed under the GPL or BSD, I can make modifications. I can choose to release my mods under BSD, GPL, or both. This is due to the way the dual license was worded, with an alternative licensing scheme. I see no reason to reach that conclusion. Under the BSD license, you can enforce your own copyrights however you want. You can place it under the GPL, MPL, reserve all rights, whatever. You don't need the dual licensing wording to do this. The point is that they are your own copyrights. If I license my mods under GPL using a "GPL version" of the original code, the original author is stuck. They can't put that into BSD codebase, since BSD allows for closing of the code and selling it. GPL does not. So if someone makes a derivative work and releases it GPL, they have effectively forked the code, so there is the orginal dual-license code and the new GPL only code. I see no reason to reach this conclusion either. Your modifications may be under the GPL but you don't automatically gain any copyrights to the original author's work. This is not much different from a company taking a BSD version of the code, making mods, closing it and selling it. Both are legal and expected for BSD and GPL. This is something I agree with. I just don;t think dual licensing has anything to do with it.
First, for the most part, I think that Eben is quite familiar with copyright law in general. I do disagree with him on this particular issue: How do you read the BSD license?
One thing to note is that I live ina state which is under the 9th Circuit, and this court has a history of reading sublicensing rights very narrowly even to the surprise of most observers (see "Gardner v. Nike" and do some research into the legal commentary relating to this case) I don't think I have the luxury of assuming that the BSD license carries such an implied sublicense right (the MIT license does but it is moot).
I think that the key is that the BSD License does not provide any requirement that derivative works carry the same licnese. Furthermore the history of allowing and discussing closed source derivations would, I think, undermine such an argument pretty quickly if it came down to a question of intent. IANAL though.
Now, I could see an argument being made to this effect, but generally, I can't imagine one making a serious argument to this effect without ignoring the historical use of the license.
To do this one must have a valid copyright to the code one wishes to restrict. Minor editorial/formatting changes (and correcting typos) do not count.
So, who gets copyright permission from whom to use the work?
Two points:
1) Lawyers are sometimes wrong. I have seen people get into serious trouble because of bad legal advice.
2) When a lawyer is wring, you have very little recourse.
So, the question is not about what I think or what Eben thinks. It is what a judge would decide if a case came down to it. In essence the question is what the law is. (and bad legal advice is no excuse in the eyes of the law.) Hence everyone should do what they can to understand the laws that affect them.
Also I am not saying that Eben is generally wrong about copyright matters. Most of the details he has provided to me about how copyright works even in an international setting have been accurate and insightful. We just disagree about the interpretation of the BSD License and whether it follows the licensed code. While this disagreement is critical in cases like the Atheros driver spat, and in questions of GPL3 compatibility, it is moot for most other sorts of questions.
My major point is that people should seek assistance from a real and unbiased attourney. I am not a real attourney and Mr Moglen is not exactly unbiased.
(Note that the danger of bias is that it can tilt one's interpretation of finer points in unteneble directions. Not that someone will be wrong about most cases, but just that it increases the odds of a dangerous bit of advice being issued.)
The real question is:
Is the original author giving the right to anyone who comes into posession of the code the right to use either license? In which case you can't deny downstream users the right to choose the license you don't like.
Or is the original author giving *you* the right to sublicense the work uner another license? In which case you can.
This is a *very* context-specific question. IANAL, but I don't think there is a safe answer, and I would err on the side of not removing hte license.
Who is giving the right to whom.
If this is a blanket offer of copyright permissions to anyone who comes into posession of the code, then no, one cannot strip the license. One would have to follow either both sets of permissions *or* the BSD License (since it offers basically a superset of actual rights granted by the GPL).
If the license is saying that it allows for sublicensing under the GPL, then it allows someone to essentially put a notice at the top which states that this copy is GPL-only by virtue of sublicense.
IANAL, though, and if this matters then you should discuss this with a real and unbiased attourney.
Even if it were dual licensed, the fact is that the legitimate copyright owner (only) can control the terms of redistribution. Although IANAL, I would hesitate to remove a license notice by any copyright holder, regardless of the plurality of licenses.
Heck, even if I did upgrade a license to GPL v3+ from GPL v2+ I would still include a notice that some parts were licensed under the older license. I don't think I have to say which parts those are, however.
I am not saying this is legal or not. I am saying it seems questionable to my mind.
I think you are making a fairly common error.
Again, IANAL. If this point matters to you, your safest bet is to hire a real and an unbiased attourney.
The right to sublicense is a very special right under copyright law, and my reading of cases like Gardner v. Nike are that courts are very conservative in allowing for sublicensing due to the fear of an accused infringer being harrassed by multiple successive lawsuits.
In short, the BSD license offers you a set of rights (redistribute software, prepare additional works, etc) and limits those to certain conditions (notices of permissions which must be included and the like). If a right is not granted by the BSD license, then it is not granted regardless of how those relate to the permissions issued. I would therefore note:
1) Nonexclusive licenses are indivisible and almost never (in copyright) allow for implied sublicense rights. This is pretty uncontroversial.
2) The BSD, ISC, and similar licenses offer a notice which provide, directly from the author, the right to anyone who obtains the software the rights to use the code under the terms of that license. This does not extend to added elements in derivative works, but does extend to every element of the code as licensed by the author under the BSD license. Hence Microsoft can use BSD licensed code in Windows because the University of California gave them permission to do so, but Microsoft does not have the right to change the rights on the copyrighted elements of the code they used with permission.
Hence no sublicensing right is required to excersize the other rights granted in the license.
FWIW, Eben Moglen disagrees with me, though I haven't yet gotten any objections to my reasoning which invalidate my conclusion from him. So again, take it for what its worth and with the appropriate shipment of salt. However, I would note that no BSD licensors I have talked to agree with Moglen that the intent of the license allows sublicensing.
Actually,, I would add one thing to that.
My opinion doesn't matter. It is a set of concerns and how I see them.
Eben may have more information, but his opinion ultimately doesn't matter.
The only opinions that matter are those of the judges.
In the end, if you are hiring an attourney to keep you safe, get one whose only agenda is keeping yu safe. And learn the principles involved to the best of your ability. And as with medicine, if in doubt, get a second opinion or play it safe.
Note the conditional in my statement. We don't have access to every email exchanged.
However, some of the emails Theo has released could be read as such a threat. I don't know if this was intended as such, but I can see how Mr Moglen could have come to that conclusion.
I would agree with this.
However, if you read the GPL v3 closely, the BSD License may be incompatible with section 7 of that license (which allows the removal of additional permissions when the software is *distributed* but not necessarily modified), see paragraph 2 of section 7.
None of these relate to some abstract undeniable right to say whatever you want. Clearly the freedom of speech is the right to dissent. And although a strong case can be made that hate-speech is a form of dissent especially when criminalized, my own case against this does not rely on this premise. (However, in the US, hate speech is protected as a form of dissent, see Brandenburg v. Ohio. IANAL though.)
Hate speech laws are ostensibly passed in order to help people get along together in a diverse community. Those laws however do impinge upon one fundamental right in a democracy: The right to equal protection under the law.
The reason is that hate speech laws are fundamentally impossible to apply properly across the board. In particular laws which are designed to protect a few specific minority groups (such as holocaust denial laws) do not provide equal protection for everyone. Some groups (particularly Jews, in part because they are both an ethnic and a religious group and so tend to get the benefits of both sets of protections) tend to benefit while other groups (for example, Arabs and Muslims) tend to be discriminated against.
As for terrorism manuals, I think that these should not be banned, but not for any reason other than pure practicality. Such manuals offer security personnel unparalleled opportunities to keep up on likely tactics by terrorists and thus help do their jobs. Hence terrorist manuals have plenty of legitimate uses in line with ensuring public safety. The arguments for allowing terrorism manuals to be published are the same for allowing or even endorsing full disclosure of software security problems.
They shouldn't care about *my* opinion by itself. They should care about the *law.* If it is an issue, they should discuss this matter with an attourney without an agenda.
And BTW, I have made a decision *not* to upgrade certain projects of mine (LedgerSMB is a group project and not my own decision alone) to the GPL v3 because I depend on BSD-licensed software and I believe that the GPL v3 (as Mr Moglen has confirmed) requires the ability to relicense most dependencies under the GPL v3 with no additional permission. I have even gone as far as to ask the dependency authors whether they intend the license to allow that sort of license change, and done serious research into when implied sublicense rights are granted.
Again, IANAL. If the answer matters, discuss the concerns with a *real* and *unbiased* attourney. I am not a *real* attourney, and I do not believe mr Moglen is *unbiased* so I would rather people take both opinions with appropriate shipments of salt.
My legal opinion is relevant because if I make a mistake and violate someone else's copyrights based on legal advice from Moglen and others, I am the one who is liable, not them. They would probably not even be liable for malpractice unless I could show that they were intentionally wrong.
My main recommendation for any developers is to seek legal advice from people who are outside the FOSS community.
I don't think there is any question at all. The work as a whole license needs not be the same as the excerpt licnese.
Also I agree that the copyright notices were probably prematurely altered. A safer approach might be to use language like:
"Portions may be copyright (2007) so-and-so.
So-and-so has added this notice here because he/she intends to make changes to the software and release those changes under [insert license here]. Please do not count on this file as being entirely original to the author and, if in doubt, contact the author below for a copy of his source code under the original BSD license."
IANAL, though.
Who is granting the rights? WHo is the recipient of those rights? On what basis can this be superceded other than by adding copyrighted elements of one's own to enforce independantly of those used with the permission of this license?
IANAL....
BTW, I agree with Theo on his interpretation of the BSD License as one which does not allow sublicensing. I think that Mr Moglen and others are factually wrong as to the nature of the license. But IANAL.
However, if Theo threatened to sue Mr Moglen or anyone else over these sorts of things, this is not helpful either. It is exceedingly difficult to sue lawyers for malpractice on the basis of his/her opinions and representation strategy (I suppose if a lawyer, say, goes on vacation instead of representing you at your trial that might be another thing). We should assume that all mistakes are honest until proven otherwise.
To be fair, the GPL doesn't guarantee patch trickle-down either. Nobody may be inclined to build patches, or they may keep them for private deployments.
This means you can prepare derivative works under any license, but you can't assert that the new license covers the code you are merely using with permission.
IANAL....
You may want to take a look at my journal entry about BSD/GPL3 compatibility concerns then. I respect people who want to allow people to use their work under any license.
However, the GPL3 grants them the right to restrict downstream permissions on your code without asserting any copyrights of their own over the affected code. You may want to think about this issue somewhat and talk about it with your lawyer (ideally one outside the FOSS community so you can be sure there is no bias) and consider adding a sublicensing provision or a dual license provision.
IANAL, TINLA, Please speak about these concerns with your attourney if the answers matter.
The current 3 clause BSD license allows someone to release derived works under the GPL (or under closed-source commercial license). If you don't like that, then don't use the 3 clause BSD license. Licenses have specific meaning that should be understood before they are used. Ok, I think you are mischaracterizing the dispute. I don't think that anyone disagrees about the BSD license allowing for derivatives under the GPL v2 (see my latest journal entry why I don't think this applies to the GPL v3).
The large issue has to do with whether the BSD license allows for sublicensing (i.e for a licensee to offer a portion of his/her rights to a downstream licensee as a separate license). I personally don't think it does. Instead, I see the BSD license as a direct grant of rights to anyone who gets a copy of the source code.
In the case of a derivative work, nothing here prevents you from enforcing your own copyrights in any way you see fit (as long as you obey the terms of the BSD License). However, you cannot dictate to other people what terms govern the code which was provided to you under a nonexclusive BSD license. This is actually a big difference. Mr Moglen is on record saying that he thinks that the BSD license allows for this sort of sublicensing, and I disagree.