<!DOCTYPE html><html><head><title></title></head><body><div>On Tue, Mar 17, 2026, at 06:56, Vicentte Felipe wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite" id="qt" style=""><div dir="auto"><div>THE MAINTENANCE OBLIGATION (THE VICENTTE DUTY):</div><div dir="auto">Unlike the standard 0BSD license, this software is NOT provided "as-is." </div><div dir="auto">The Author(s) and/or Distributor(s) accept an affirmative obligation to:</div><div dir="auto">1. Review and address reported technical defects and bugs.</div><div dir="auto">2. Use best efforts to provide fixes for issues that impair the software\u2019s </div><div dir="auto"> intended functionality.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>IANAL, but this obligation appears to be functionally pointless. First, I can't imagine any 'distributor' being willing to take on this obligation, so that means software published using this license would not be included in any Linux distribution or be publishable on a well-known package or container repository (PyPI, DockerHub, crates.io).<br><br>Second, since this type of license is "accept on use or distribution", and the authors have no idea who is using the software, how could this even be enforced?</div><div><br></div></body></html>