[License-review] For Approval: The BOS Public License v1.2

[Harz Tronics]

Here is the revised BOS Public License v1.2, which explicitly clarifies
that attribution requirements apply solely to source code releases and not
to compiled binaries/object code.

Here is the link: https://github.com/Luis-Harz/The-BOS-License

And here the full License:
THE BOS PUBLIC LICENSE (Better Open Source)
Version 1.2 Based on the MIT License with custom attribution terms
Copyright (c) 2026 [Your Name]

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the “Software”), to
deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice, this permission notice, and the additional terms
below shall be included in all copies, forks, or substantial portions of
the Software.

ADDITIONAL TERMS:
(Note: The additional terms below apply strictly to public Source Code
distribution and repositories, not to compiled binaries or object code.)

1. Original Project Link: Any public 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 its immediate
   upstream repository in its primary documentation (e.g., the README file
or main
   project description). This requirement applies strictly to public code
distribution
   and repository forks; it does not apply to private, internal, offline,
or
   execution-only use. In case the upstream repository's URL becomes
invalid,
   deleted, private, or inaccessible, this requirement is waived.

2. Preservation of Credits: If the Software contains a CREDITS.txt file,
   existing names and credits within this file must be preserved without
removal
   or alteration in all forks, modifications, or republished versions of
the
   Software. You are permitted to add new credits or names (for yourself or
   other contributors) to the file.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED “AS IS”, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING
FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN
THE SOFTWARE.

On Fri, Jul 24, 2026, 12:20 Carlo Piana <carlo at piana.eu> wrote:

>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *Da: *"Harz Tronics" <harztronicsgmbh at gmail.com>
> *A: *"Carlo Piana" <carlo at piana.eu>
> *Inviato: *Venerdì, 24 luglio 2026 10:30:27
> *Oggetto: *Re: [License-review] For Approval: The BOS Public License v1.0
>
> Hello Carlo,
>
> Thank you for your feedback and perspective from the compliance side. I
> would like to clarify a few points and share the updated context with
> Version 1.1:
>
>
> Please retract the previous versione and apply for the new one. Also, you
> seem to have replied to me only, this discussion should be public. Can you
> bring it back to the list?
>
> Also, see the requirements for the submission (Pam's email).
>
>
> 1. Downstream Rights & Credits: In V1.1, I explicitly clarified that
> downstream authors and contributors are fully encouraged to add their own
> names/credits to CREDITS.txt. The requirement only ensures that existing
> upstream credits are not stripped away.
>
>
> OK, this is similar to what happens in other contexts, so I think it's
> legit. That was not transparent since we could not see the text. But does
> this apply only to source or also to object code?  Because in the second
> case it would be shifting to some copyleft.
>
> 2. Invalid/Offline Links: V1.1 includes an explicit waiver clause. If an
> upstream repository becomes private, deleted, or unavailable, the backlink
> requirement is completely waived to prevent legal traps for downstream
> users.
>
>
> OK, this fixes at least one of my untold concerns.
>
>
> 3. Friction & Rationale: The motivation comes from the modern
> "single-click republication" ecosystem on platforms like GitHub or GitLab.
> The requirement is meant to be minimal: standard platform forks (which
> display origin links by default) or a simple line in the README already
> fully satisfy this condition.
>
> My objection still stands. And IMHO it creates bigger problems than the
> fixed ones.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carlo
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20260724/3b596fc6/attachment.htm>