What about section 7?
BSD license says "Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted". If the distributors is under contract that forbids granting such permission, the result is again quite expectable. The only option would be to add restriction on distribution on top of the BSD license, making it proprietary licensed. I will grant jwr that GPL is different from BSD in that aspect, since it do not allow proprietary licensing.
Neither has anything to do with patent agreements, because it all focus on permission for redistribution, use and modification. Patent agreements are one company contractually promising not to sue the other company or their customers over patents, and thus we have GPLv3. Since such promise are not conditions placed on either company, section 7 "if ... conditions are imposed on you" do not get invoked. Microsoft-Novell agreement is likely an example of this. See the wikipedia article for more details, including what the lawyers said at the time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft-Novell_agreement#Agr...
I think I see why you are confused here. That permission grant in the BSD licence is granted by the copyright holder, and is not a condition of redistribution by any intermediary (you don't own the copyright to the code so you don't have the ability to grant that permission anyway). To redistribute you must merely follow the 2/3 terms of the licence which boil down to keeping the copyright notice and text of the licence (and for the 3 clause not using the authors names to promote it).
You can distribute BSD licensed code in binary form as long as you have the required patent licences. The original author does not need those licences (if they never distribute the binaries) and neither do your customers (if they never distribute the binaries).
That term at the start of the BSD licence is not a condition of redistribution.
You are confusing the steps. One is a person taking BSD work and adding an additional license to the binary result (proprietary licensing).
The other way, is someone taking BSD work and redistribute it as BSD (under no additional license).
If you attach the BSD license to the binary, you are giving permission to redistribute further than the patent owner permitted. Thus the only allowed scenario with a patent with restriction on distribution, is the first one which is called proprietary licensing.
And BSD allow it, GPL do not. Thus one can summarize it as as: Some patent licenses require proprietary licensing, which can only be added to a BSD/MIT work. GPL do not allow proprietary licensing, and thus do not work with such patent licenses.
However, that is not the message he made, which is why I called FUD on it. It is also not very interesting statement since anyone who knows about GPL and BSD knows about how they differ regarding proprietary licensing.
The license choice of this program do absolutely nothing to the fact that infringing patent rights run the risk of forcing a company to stop distributing a product. BSD, GPL, MIT, Apache, proprietary license, public domain. It. Does. Not. Matter. Copyright law and patent law are two different area of law.
That someone might come and impose condition on the distributor for "other reasons", is quite irrelevant. Of course someone might go to Microsoft and use a rubber hose to impose condition on then, but what the ... does that has to do with copyright licenses? Someone can equally easy impose restriction that prevent a company to comply with the BSD license.
Patent agreements are also not even covered by the GPLv2. This has been said by the lawyers who made the license. If you do not trust that, then trust all the lawyers who argued with Stallman to not include such provisions in the GPLv3 draft, which include many of the largest software companies in the world. So again, I call FUD on such claims. If your claim was true, GPLv3 would not be said to had adding it.
Last, companies such as blizzard included LGPLv2 software in their flagship product called Starcraft 2. If companies would go for such great lengths to avoid using GPL licenses (the LGPLv2 code itself is under same requirement as GPLv2 except for the linking exception), then how come they couldn't spend the few extra weeks to replace a small library? Or should we all expect that blizzards lawyers are incompetent and this flagship product was just extremely lucky to not been sent to the grave? again, I call FUD.
So Please, stop with the FUD. Why ruin more comment threads about interesting software with it? Some people come here to discuss technology.