> You're right, but it still seems to prohibit any kind of distribution > which is not by hyperlinks that include their logo.
I agree that it doesn't make any actual difference with regard to freeness; I was just refuting Brandens insinuation of ignorance on behalf of the license writer. > That's not > trademark protection, it's rather a kind of forced advertising. > Unlike the noxious BSD advertising clause, however, it actually > requires the advertising, and as such, is non-free. > > It seems to me that we cannot even distribute it in the nonfree > archive. > My own interpretation is that it can be distributed in the non-free archive. It fails DFSG 3 by not allowing removal of the hyperlink; but as long as the hyperlink is there, I don't see any problem for non-free.