Hm... now I need to re-evaluate, because I didn't think about that much when
I read the license. Well, it doesn't harm your freedoms necessarily. It can,
however, if the name is a trademark.
For example, if Firefox was under this license, this would be a problem,
because Abrowser would have to be named "Firefox Derivative Trisquel" or
similar, but the Mozilla trademark guidelines don't allow this (Firefox has
been changed and you've modified the trademark, both not allowed by the
Mozilla trademark policy); in effect, the combination does not allow trivial
changes to be made, which is of course unacceptable.
Similarly, the trademark only being allowed in noncommercial distributions
effectively kills freedom 2, because you can then only distribute verbatim
copies noncommercially.
Actually, since the trademark policy can be changed, the name being a
trademark at all would make this license unacceptable; even if the trademark
does not harm your freedoms today, it could harm them tomorrow. Even worse,
if the name is not a trademark today, it could be registered as one tomorrow,
which means you can never be sure you'll have freedom 2 or even the entirety
of freedom 3 forever. I don't know the FSF's position on this, but I would
say that if this doesn't prevent this from qualifying it as a free software
license, it at the very least makes it extremely dangerous to use, so it
should be avoided.
