The BSD 2-Clause License, also known as the Simplified BSD License or FreeBSD License, is a short permissive open-source license that lets anyone use, modify, and redistribute the covered software, including inside commercial and proprietary products, on two conditions: keep the original copyright notice and warranty disclaimer with the source code, and reproduce them in the documentation that ships with any binary distribution.1Open Source Initiative. The 2-Clause BSD License The Free Software Foundation classifies it as a lax, permissive non-copyleft license that is compatible with the GNU GPL.2GNU Project. Various Licenses and Comments About Them
What You Can Do With BSD 2-Clause Code
The license permits redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification.1Open Source Initiative. The 2-Clause BSD License That one sentence covers a lot. You can read the code, copy pieces into your own project, rewrite parts, fold it into a larger application, and ship the result to paying customers. None of that requires further permission from the original author beyond accepting the license.
Commercial and proprietary use are fully allowed. There is no obligation to release your modifications, no requirement to license your own code under the same terms, and no royalties. You can wrap BSD-licensed code inside a closed-source product and sell it without disclosing your source. That freedom is what separates permissive licenses like this one from copyleft licenses like the GPL, which require derivative works to carry the same open-source terms.
The Two Conditions in Practice
The entire compliance burden fits into two rules. Miss either one and you lose permission to redistribute, which puts you in copyright-infringement territory.
If You Ship Source Code
When you distribute the source itself, keep the original copyright notice, the list of conditions, and the warranty disclaimer intact.1Open Source Initiative. The 2-Clause BSD License Do not strip the license block from the top of files, and do not delete the LICENSE file from the repository. You can add your own copyright notice for your modifications; the original author’s notice stays.
If You Ship Binaries
When you distribute compiled software instead of source, the same copyright notice and disclaimer must appear in the documentation or other materials shipped with the binary.1Open Source Initiative. The 2-Clause BSD License A common approach is a NOTICES or THIRD-PARTY-LICENSES file inside the application bundle listing the original BSD 2-Clause text. Some teams put it on an “About” or “Legal” screen inside the application. The method does not matter as long as the end user can find it.
Warranty and Liability Disclaimer
The license provides the software “as is” with no warranties of any kind, and specifically disclaims implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose.1Open Source Initiative. The 2-Clause BSD License The author makes no promise that the software works, works well, or works for your use case.
The liability shield is broad. The license excludes responsibility for direct, indirect, incidental, special, exemplary, and consequential damages, covering lost profits, business interruptions, and the cost of replacing the software. The disclaimer applies “however caused and on any theory of liability,” including contract, strict liability, and negligence, and it applies even where the author has been told the software might cause harm.1Open Source Initiative. The 2-Clause BSD License
Warranty disclaimers are not absolute everywhere. Consumer protection statutes in some jurisdictions limit the ability to disclaim implied warranties, particularly where an express warranty has been made or a course of dealing has established expectations. The license text is a strong disclaimer; local law may still override parts of it.
The Patent Gap
One detail catches developers off guard: the BSD 2-Clause License says nothing about patents. It grants copyright permissions, but it does not include an express patent license. If a contributor holds a patent that reads on part of the code, the license text alone does not shield downstream users from an infringement claim. That is a meaningful gap compared with the Apache License 2.0, which contains an explicit patent grant.
A variant called the BSD-2-Clause Plus Patent License exists to address this. It adds a perpetual, royalty-free patent license covering contributions to the project.3Software Package Data Exchange (SPDX). BSD-2-Clause Plus Patent License If patent exposure is a concern for your project, that variant or Apache 2.0 may fit better than the standard BSD 2-Clause.
How It Compares to the BSD 3-Clause and MIT Licenses
The BSD 3-Clause License (also called the Modified or New BSD License) is nearly identical. Same two redistribution conditions, same warranty disclaimer. The difference is a third clause restricting use of the original author’s name: you cannot use the copyright holder’s name or contributors’ names to endorse or promote products derived from the software without written permission.4Open Source Initiative. The 3-Clause BSD License The 2-Clause version drops that clause. Trademark and unfair-competition law still prevent falsely implying endorsement, but the license itself adds no such protection. If you want that extra layer, use the 3-Clause version.
The MIT License is the other common permissive option. It explicitly names a broader set of rights, including sublicensing, publishing, and selling copies. The BSD 2-Clause grants “redistribution and use” with or without modification but does not use words like “sublicense” or “publish.”1Open Source Initiative. The 2-Clause BSD License Whether that wording gap matters legally is debatable; redistribution with modification arguably covers the same ground. Some corporate legal teams still prefer MIT because the explicit language leaves less room for argument. MIT also defines “Software” to include associated documentation; the BSD 2-Clause speaks only of source and binary forms. Neither license includes a patent grant.
GPL Compatibility
Code released under the BSD 2-Clause License can be incorporated into GPL-licensed projects. The Free Software Foundation lists the FreeBSD License (its name for this license) as compatible with the GNU GPL.2GNU Project. Various Licenses and Comments About Them Compatibility runs one way: BSD-licensed code can flow into a GPL project, and the combined work then falls under the GPL’s copyleft terms. You cannot take GPL code and relicense it under the BSD 2-Clause. For library authors, that one-way compatibility is a feature: your code can end up in proprietary products, GPL projects, and Apache-licensed projects without creating conflicts.
Applying the License to Your Project
You need two pieces of information: the copyright year and the full legal name of the copyright holder, whether that is you personally or your organization. The OSI template uses placeholders for both.1Open Source Initiative. The 2-Clause BSD License
Copy the full license text into a plain-text file named LICENSE or LICENSE.txt in the root of your repository, and replace the placeholder year and name with your actual information. That file is the authoritative legal document for your project.
For individual source files, many developers add a short comment header with the copyright notice and the SPDX short-form identifier BSD-2-Clause.5Software Package Data Exchange (SPDX). BSD 2-Clause Simplified License The SPDX identifier is a standardized tag that automated license-scanning tools recognize, and it saves you from pasting the full license into every file. A typical header:
// Copyright 2026 Your Name. SPDX-License-Identifier: BSD-2-Clause
There is no officially standardized header format for the BSD 2-Clause, so the exact wording is up to you. What matters is that each source file carries enough information to identify the license if it gets separated from the rest of the project. Including the SPDX identifier makes compliance audits significantly easier for anyone downstream.