New license request: BALv5 [SPDX-Online-Tools]

[anoraktrend]

1. License Name: Berkeley Artistic License V5
2. Short identifier: BALv5
3. License Author or steward: Lucy Brown
4. Comments: This License was made as a means of creating a more legible, correct, and up to date variation Artistic License V1, that has been conformed to my personal interpretation of the BSD, (Berkeley), style. It differs from BSD and Artistic v2 in that it is not re-licensable and it is copyleft rather than permissive. It differs from GPL in that it's short, Clear, and accessible and it contains Metadata to credit developers within the license. While it hasn’t yet been submitted to the OSI and FSF for review, this is my top priority once I have an identifier for ease of reference.
5. License Request Url: http://tools.spdx.org/app/license_requests/397
6. URL(s): https://raw.githubusercontent.com/anoraktrend/Berkeley-Artistic/refs/heads/main/The%20Berkeley%20Artistic%20license
7. OSI Status: Not Submitted
8. Example Projects: https://github.com/anoraktrend/frankensrc

[jlovejoy]

@anoraktrend - It sounds like this is a newly-drafted license that is not in use yet, is that correct?
If so, it won't meet the "substantial use" criteria for SPDX License List inclusion.
If you plan to submit it to the OSI, it would be better to do that first as that may result in some changes to the text. (If it is accepted by OSI at whatever point, it is automatically be eligible for inclusion by SPDX.

Keep in mind that "license proliferation" is not seen as beneficial for the open source ecosystem, so you might want to consider if this new license is really needed. That is (also) something that is better suited for discussion with the OSI.

As such, I'll close this issue shortly and you can certainly re-submit later, pending the OSI conversation!

[anoraktrend]

It’s most certainly in use by myself at the very least. As mentioned, it’s a modernization of the Artistic V1 license with some changes to fit the BSD style and this version is one that doesn’t violate the OSD. The license is intentionally copyleft as well. I am unsure as to anyone else who uses it at this point in time.

[richardfontana]

This license has recently been discussed on threads on OSI's license-review, e.g.:
https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2024-October/005564.html

[jlovejoy]

given this is currently under review by OSI, I"m going to mark it as waiting on submitter (even tho it's really waiting on OSI and submitter) and move to the next release.

If the OSI accepts it, it's an automatic inclusion on the SPDX License List.
If there are changes to the text as a result of OSI review, then we don't want to review until the text is stable.
If OSI rejects it, then we can consider under SPDX inclusion guidelines, but the substantial use factor will be even more critical.