Re: wpoison, is it okay?

["Sunnanvind" <sunnanvind@fenderson.com>]

> 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.