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

[Carlo Piana]

The obligation appears to be largely unenforceable, vague, and contractually ill-conceived; further details follow.  
  
What is most important in my reading is that it imposes a positive obligation to modify the software, even when tied to a purported "supported" status.  
It remains a positive obligation on which the license is conditioned, and it does not fulfill the requirement of #2 -- the obligation to provide the complete source code when it is not already part of the distribution.  
In my view, this is not substantially different from requiring a fee or royalty for commercial distribution.  
Consequently, it appears to conflict with #1, as the fee or royalty is in kind and effectively becomes a maintenance service obligation.  
  
Regardless who the original author is (whether the code writer or the first party applying this license to code obtained under another license), adopting this license seems either imprudent or strategically clever.  
It could be considered imprudent if the obligation applies to them, but potentially strategic if they can avoid the obligation because the copyright holder is positioned to avoid non‑compliance with the condition.  
Additionally, an obligation typically requires a debtor and a designated entitled party.  
It is unclear who is entitled -- whether all users, free users, and under what timeframe; whether the entitlement persists indefinitely or only while the "supported status" is claimed; under which SLA; what the consequences of inadequate maintenance are; and whether any liability limitations exist, especially given the potential for significant damages (see further).  
Regarding a best‑effort commitment, the license language does not explicitly state the terms.  
This introduces additional complexities that lawyers typically address in software support agreements; such details are difficult to capture in a brief license and may be beyond the author's practical understanding.  
  
Finally, the phrase "the remedy is limited to the maintenance obligations stated above" raises questions about which remedy is referenced -- the limitation itself or a tort remedy such as damages.  
The limitation appears to relate to the use or performance of the software, rather than to the performance of the maintenance obligation.  
What are the implications of this distinction?  
  
I believe this license is not suitable for approval, for several reasons, including those raised by Josh and Pam and its potentially confusing name. I recommend that licenses be examined more thoroughly -- including by a competent  lawyer, as the submission instructions recommend -- before we invest our collective professional time -- and associated costs -- into dissecting new licenses.   
It seems unlikely that an individual without extensive experience could surpass the collective expertise of the many professionals who have crafted hundreds of licenses over the past 25 years, many of which are used by hundreds of thousands of packages.  
  
Cheers  

Carlo, in his personal capacity.