[License-review] For Approval: The BOS Public License v1.0 (Lucy Randall)
Lucy Ada Randall
lucybrown at vivaldi.net
Fri Jul 24 08:15:42 UTC 2026
While I agree with Josh and Pam that the license's execution itself
needs work and to be passed through a real IP lawyer to iron out the
details, I understand the rational of this license entirely.
Attribution, especially in the current day and age, is very important
and the goal of this license is to formalize an Attribution or Credits
file is a goal I also feel strongly about. As such, I repeat the
recommendation that you get a real IP lawyer to help you iron out the
license's details.
On 2026-07-24 07:27, license-review-request at lists.opensource.org wrote:o
> Send License-review mailing list submissions to
> license-review at lists.opensource.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> license-review-request at lists.opensource.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> license-review-owner at lists.opensource.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of License-review digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. For Approval: The BOS Public License v1.0 (Harz Tronics)
> 2. Re: For Approval: The BOS Public License v1.0 (Josh Berkus)
> 3. Re: For Approval: The BOS Public License v1.0 (Pamela Chestek)
> 4. Re: For Approval: The BOS Public License v1.0 (Carlo Piana)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2026 23:44:16 +0200
> From: Harz Tronics <harztronicsgmbh at gmail.com>
> To: license-review at lists.opensource.org
> Subject: [License-review] For Approval: The BOS Public License v1.0
> Message-ID:
> <CALV9SKDKgBxWDzth-8u+LLciVkfOzByBS0X=Vc+gBfDObSNQpw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hello OSI Team,
> I would like to submit the BOS Public License v1.0 for OSI approval
> under
> the License Review Process.
>
> == Introduction & Rationale ==
>
> The BOS Public License is a permissive license based on the standard
> MIT
> License, enhanced with custom attribution terms designed to address a
> common issue in modern open-source development: lost attribution and
> broken
> traceability in public repository forks.
>
>
> In the modern Git ecosystem, public forks and republications on
> platforms
> like GitHub or GitLab often strip context away from the original
> repository. The BOS License aims to increase fairness and transparency
> without imposing restrictions on software usage, modification, or
> commercial exploitation.
>
> == Summary of Additional Terms ==
>
> The license adds two specific conditions:
> Original Project Link: Any fork, web-hosted repository, or public
> republication of this Software (such as on GitHub, GitLab, or similar
> platforms) must contain a clearly visible and accessible link back to
> the
> original repository in its primary documentation (e.g., the README file
> or
> main project description).
>
> Note on scope: This requirement applies strictly to public code
> distribution and public repository forks; it does not apply to private,
> internal, offline, or execution-only use.
>
>
> Preservation of Credits: If the original repository contains a
> CREDITS.txt
> file, this file must be preserved completely unaltered and included in
> all
> forks, modifications, or republished versions of the Software.
>
> == Distinction from Existing Licenses ==
>
> Unlike standard MIT or BSD licenses, the BOS License explicitly ensures
> a
> backlink to the primary repository for public online distributions,
> while
> carefully avoiding restrictions on non-public, offline, or internal
> usage.
>
> == Repository Link ==
> You can review the full license text and documentation here:
> https://github.com/Luis-Harz/The-BOS-License
> Thank you very much for your time and for reviewing this submission. I
> look
> forward to hearing your feedback.
>
> Best regards,
> Luis Harz
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20260722/2a0a66bc/attachment-0001.htm>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2026 12:41:16 -0700
> From: Josh Berkus <josh at berkus.org>
> To: License submissions for OSI review
> <license-review at lists.opensource.org>, Harz Tronics
> <harztronicsgmbh at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [License-review] For Approval: The BOS Public License
> v1.0
> Message-ID: <a9dc0b58-12d8-4129-8b55-4f3be44ea675 at berkus.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> On 7/22/26 2:44 PM, Harz Tronics wrote:
>> You can review the full license text and documentation here:
>> https://github.com/Luis-Harz/The-BOS-License <https://github.com/Luis-
>> Harz/The-BOS-License>
>> Thank you very much for your time and for reviewing this submission. I
>> look forward to hearing your feedback.
>
> Please attach a copy of the text to your submission. While we
> appreciate making it available via Github, we need a version that isn't
> subject to dynamic changes to evaluate.
>
> Also, your links are broken.
>
> I do question the utility of this license, based on its goals. While I
> understand your motivation, I do not think you have thought it through
> sufficiently.
>
> - What is an "original repository"? The repository I forked, or some
> other repository? If it's some other, then how do I know where that is
> if it's not in the license text?
>
> - How does that apply if software under this license becomes part of a
> language library set (like NPM or PyPy)?
>
> - What if the "original repository" is made private, archived, or
> deleted, or is on a platform that no longer exists? What if it gets
> hijacked? Am I still obligated to link to it?
>
> - What if I'm not forking the whole project, but instead am just
> copying
> a single module from it? What are my obligations?
>
> - What if a project under this license imports another project under
> the
> same license? Which is the "original repository" then?
>
> Then there's the clause around CREDITS.txt:
>
> "You are not allowed to remove, hide, or edit the names or credits
> within this file."
>
> The way this clause is written, only the "original repository" can add
> a
> CREDITS file, and nobody in any downstream repository can add names to
> it, even if they do extensive work -- even if the work they do eclipses
> the work done by the "original repository".
>
> Overall, this license falls into the common trap of thinking of OSS as
> having an "original source" which was somehow created from scratch
> without using any other OSS components, and all downstream derivatives
> are copying most of its code, and directly from it. While direct
> forking certainly happens, so does minor code copying, downstream
> redistribution, project merging, aggregation into collections, etc. A
> new license should take the realities of modern OSS software
> distribution into account.
>
> --
> Josh Berkus
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2026 19:30:14 -0700
> From: Pamela Chestek <pamela at chesteklegal.com>
> To: license-review at lists.opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-review] For Approval: The BOS Public License
> v1.0
> Message-ID: <dd7a54c8-eb0f-4f63-a19a-d3b4b87c8164 at chesteklegal.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> Please provide all the information as required on this page,
> https://opensource.org/licenses/review-process, and in particular do
> not
> skip "Describe any legal review the license has been through, including
> whether it was drafted by a lawyer."
>
> 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 7/22/2026 2:44 PM, Harz Tronics wrote:
>> Hello OSI Team,
>> I would like to submit the BOS Public License v1.0 for OSI approval
>> under the License Review Process.
>>
>> == Introduction & Rationale ==
>>
>> The BOS Public License is a permissive license based on the standard
>> MIT License, enhanced with custom attribution terms designed to
>> address a common issue in modern open-source development: lost
>> attribution and broken traceability in public repository forks.
>>
>>
>> In the modern Git ecosystem, public forks and republications on
>> platforms like GitHub or GitLab often strip context away from the
>> original repository. The BOS License aims to increase fairness and
>> transparency without imposing restrictions on software usage,
>> modification, or commercial exploitation.
>>
>> == Summary of Additional Terms ==
>>
>> The license adds two specific conditions:
>> Original Project Link: Any fork, web-hosted repository, or public
>> republication of this Software (such as on GitHub, GitLab, or similar
>> platforms) must contain a clearly visible and accessible link back to
>> the original repository in its primary documentation (e.g., the README
>> file or main project description).
>>
>> Note on scope: This requirement applies strictly to public code
>> distribution and public repository forks; it does not apply to
>> private, internal, offline, or execution-only use.
>>
>>
>> Preservation of Credits: If the original repository contains a
>> CREDITS.txt file, this file must be preserved completely unaltered and
>> included in all forks, modifications, or republished versions of the
>> Software.
>>
>> == Distinction from Existing Licenses ==
>>
>> Unlike standard MIT or BSD licenses, the BOS License explicitly
>> ensures a backlink to the primary repository for public online
>> distributions, while carefully avoiding restrictions on non-public,
>> offline, or internal usage.
>>
>> == Repository Link ==
>> You can review the full license text and documentation here:
>> https://github.com/Luis-Harz/The-BOS-License
>> Thank you very much for your time and for reviewing this submission. I
>> look forward to hearing your feedback.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Luis Harz
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
>> necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Communication from
>> the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email
>> address.
>>
>> License-review mailing list
>> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2026 09:26:54 +0200 (CEST)
> From: Carlo Piana <carlo at piana.eu>
> To: License submissions for OSI review
> <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
> Subject: Re: [License-review] For Approval: The BOS Public License
> v1.0
> Message-ID: <734866278.8333592.1784878014265.JavaMail.zimbra at piana.eu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
>
>
> ----- Messaggio originale -----
>> Da: "Josh Berkus" <josh at berkus.org>
>> A: "License submissions for OSI review"
>> <license-review at lists.opensource.org>, "Harz Tronics"
>> <harztronicsgmbh at gmail.com>
>> Inviato: Giovedì, 23 luglio 2026 21:41:16
>> Oggetto: Re: [License-review] For Approval: The BOS Public License
>> v1.0
>
>> On 7/22/26 2:44 PM, Harz Tronics wrote:
>>> You can review the full license text and documentation here:
>>> https://github.com/Luis-Harz/The-BOS-License
>>> <https://github.com/Luis-
>>> Harz/The-BOS-License>
>>> Thank you very much for your time and for reviewing this submission.
>>> I
>>> look forward to hearing your feedback.
>>
>> Please attach a copy of the text to your submission. While we
>> appreciate making it available via Github, we need a version that
>> isn't
>> subject to dynamic changes to evaluate.
>
> [...]
>
>>
>> Overall, this license falls into the common trap of thinking of OSS as
>> having an "original source" which was somehow created from scratch
>> without using any other OSS components, and all downstream derivatives
>> are copying most of its code, and directly from it. While direct
>> forking certainly happens, so does minor code copying, downstream
>> redistribution, project merging, aggregation into collections, etc. A
>> new license should take the realities of modern OSS software
>> distribution into account.
>>
>> --
>> Josh Berkus
>>
>
>
> While we can't really discuss the legal text, since the link is broken
> and the submission is still lacking the required information, or the
> text of the license for that matter, I could not agree more with Josh.
> Judging from the description alone, the idea that there is one original
> source, or that the original copyright holder has special rights over
> downstream contributors of a project, is deeply flawed.
>
> I am not even sure what shortcoming this license intends to cure
> compared to the hundreds of already existing non copyleft MIT-style
> licenses. While I cannot judge the actual condition, the idea to create
> a new type of condition (e.g. forks must put a backlink to the
> "original project") creates additional friction in the compliance
> process -- which is already a nightmare for a medium-sized embedded
> software project. Therefore I urge license submitter to introduce one
> only where there is a strong rationale. As a rule of the thumb, if in
> more than 25 years nobody thought of it, most likely it is not a
> perceived problem, unless something new has come around (see the SaaS
> model, or extensive AI model usage, etc.). This does not seem to be the
> case here.
>
> Cheers
>
> Carlo
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of License-review Digest, Vol 153, Issue 1
> **********************************************
More information about the License-review
mailing list