b) if you wish to make changes as defined in clause 2 and 3, and
distribute a modified version of this package, then
clauses 3c and 4c are required
This seems to me to be problematic. Normally the Artistic License is OK
because 3a and 4b provide a very simple, free modification-distribution
option. Restricting to 3c and 4c makes it much more restrictive, even akin
to the GFDL's Invariant Sections.
3c:
c) rename any non-standard executables so the names do not
conflict with standard executables, which must also be
provided, and provide a separate manual page for each
non-standard executable that clearly documents how it
differs from the Standard Version.
This appears to be an even stronger requirement than TeX, and not at all a
reasonable one.
4c:
c) accompany any non-standard executables with their
corresponding Standard Version executables, giving the
non-standard executables non-standard names, and clearly
documenting the differences in manual pages (or
equivalent), together with instructions on where to get the
Standard Version.
This is effectively an 'invariant program' requirement which doesn't even
allow the modified programs to use the same names as the originals.
Doesn't look free to me.
--Nathanael Nerode
