[License-review] Official Submission: Modified 0BSD License (Maintenance-Required)

[Pamela Chestek]

IMO this license should be rejected for the reasons that Josh gives. It 
is nonsensical.

Pam

Pamela S. Chestek
Chestek Legal
4641 Post St.
Unit 4316
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
+1 919-800-8033
pamela at chesteklegal.com
www.chesteklegal.com


On 3/17/2026 4:37 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 3/17/26 3:03 PM, Vicentte Felipe wrote:
>> ​Contractual Condition: The "Maintenance Obligation" is a condition 
>> precedent to the license grant. While the user is not required to 
>> provide attribution, the Author's right to distribute the software is 
>> contingent upon their commitment to the "Duty to Repair."
>> ​Binding Nature: If the maintainer fails to provide "best efforts" to 
>> address defects (such as breaking changes in the underlying React 
>> framework), they are in breach of the license conditions.
>
> I don't understand what you're expecting to accomplish with this license.
>
> "The Original Author(s) and/or those who explicitly claim to provide a 
> supported version of this software accept an affirmative obligation to:
> ​Review and address reported technical defects."
>
> First, "original author" is meaningless given that you haven't defined 
> it in the license.
>
> If distributors are "claiming to provide support", surely addressing 
> technical defects is a matter for the support contract?  How would you 
> define, or prove, "claiming to provide support"?  Who judges whether 
> defects have been "addressed"?  Who defines a "defect"?
>
> If your goal is to build a stronger React framework community by 
> pledging to address defect reports yourself, surely there are more 
> effective, and easier, ways to do that than a license?
>
> Licenses aren't tools for social engineering.  If you're trying to 
> build a commercially and technically successful community, clever 
> license terms aren't going to do that for you.  You have to do the 
> actual community-building work.
>