Perhaps I'm really misunderstanding this but with a BSD license I thought I could:
* Take the code and use it for free
* Take the code and use it for free to make money
* Take the code and add to it and re-release it open-source (as long as I include the same license)
* Take the code and add to it and re-release it closed-source (as long as I include the same license)
Sounds like I've got quite a lot of freedom in what I do with it. The only things that I can't do (as far as I can tell) are:
* Redistribute the code without that license
* Say the the creators endorse my work without permission
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
(This statement is void if the BSD license is old enough to contain the Obnoxious Advertising Clause. No BSD license variants do these days, primarily because it was Obnoxious.
More information:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html
http://bsd.slashdot.org/story/99/09/02/189210/berkeley-remov...
The Amazing Disappearing BSD License (or, A License Gets De-Clause-d):
https://urchin.earth.li/~twic/The_Amazing_Disappearing_BSD_L...
)
The FSF are quite happy to describe it as a free software licence https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ModifiedBSD - not sure who else's definition you'd rather use...?
> We use a BSD license.
I see in no way how a BSD License is free. I think the word Open-source is better suited here.
Maybe it's nitpicking. I wish English had more words that describe "free"-ness (gratis vs frei) etc.
EDIT: Okay a few words later they're also saying freedom. So I guess it's not nitpicking as I don't see how BSD gives you 'freedom'.