I forked a project which is licensed under BSD-like license. This goes asthe following:Copyright  20xx AuthorCopyRight  20xx Another authorAll rights reserved.Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or withoutmodification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice,  this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright  notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the  documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.This software is provided by the copyright holders as is and any express orimplied warranties, including, but not limited to, the implied warranties ofmerchantability and fitness for a particular purpose are disclaimed. In noevent shall the copyright holders be liable for any direct, indirect,incidental, special, exemplary, or consequential damages (including, but notlimited to, procurement of substitute goods or services; loss of use, data,or profits; or business interruption) however caused and on any theory ofliability, whether in contract, strict liability, or tort (includingnegligence or otherwise) arising in any way out of the use of this software,even if advised of the possibility of such damage.Now I want to avoid ambiguous BSD-like and state that it's under BSD3 forclarity. As I understand I should just add the following clause:* Neither the name of the <authors> nor the names of its contributors  may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software  without specific prior written permission.Can I add this clause to license of my fork? I'm not a lawyer, but it seemsthat the new license will contain the same info plus one more clause andthat should be OK.
Can I add third clause to BSD-like license?
relicensing;forking;bsd
The 2-clause BSD licence is generally known as the FreeBSD licence, which is how it gets referred to by the FSF, for example.It's different from the OpenBSD licence, which is just an ISC licence (most famously now known as the OpenBSD licence, due to various OpenBSD offshoots), whereas NetBSD has traditionally been distributed under a 4-clause licence, even though that's supposedly no longer the case for code assigned directly to NetBSD Foundation.So, if you want more recognition, especially since Netflix has been at it recently, you should just refer to your licence as the FreeBSD licence.However, as is, a statement like 2-clause BSD licence should generally be already sufficiently clear enough as-is.In fact, the advertising clause that was subsequently withdrawn by Berkeley from the 4-clause licence, was actually clause #3, so, a 3-clause BSD licence for code not explicitly originating from Berkeley is, IMHO, not at all clearer than the other alternatives presented here.