This isn't as complicated as this thread has made it out to be. Look at it from the perspective of a(n American) company that wants to distribute a product with

This isn't as complicated as this thread has made it out to be. Look at it from the perspective of a(n American) company that wants to distribute a product with kvazaar. They are prepared to purchase a distribution license from MPEG-LA for each copy sold (read: distributed), and the terms of that license do not include resale (or redistributed). Any customer redistributing their copy must purchase their own license from MPEG-LA. But they're also beholden to the terms of the GPLv2, which says this: > 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions.* You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. * Including unlimited redistribution in source or binary form as per sections 1 and 3. Now there's a problem. Guaranteeing the text of the GPL implicitly allows the user to infringe the patent license, while honoring the patent license violates the guarantee of the GPL. Such a binary becomes completely un-distributable. With permissive licenses that have no such clause, there's nothing preventing Company X from distributing the licensed binary and source and telling the user that if they want to redistribute a binary, to buy a patent license of their own. That's why the BSD license would not pose a problem for distribution in the presence of an extra, more restrictive license such as a patent package.