I *hope* that nobody is going to read that as requiring that any redistributor have a name which both starts, and does not start, with the letter "A".
I believe the consensus view here is that absurd licences are invalid as grants and the defaults under copyright law apply.
Asking for clarification is one thing; refusing to accept it is quite another.It seems reasonable to ask for clarification.
Please add your clarifications to your licence text. Assertions here may not be taken into consideration. I'm not sure what current opinion is about legal validity of unsigned emails to a public list.
How am I (mis)representing anything as being a work "from BSD"? What is "BSD", anyway, as a legal entity? (AFAIK, BSD inc. no longer exists.)
I suggest that it is reasonable to expect that "BSD Protection License" would create the impression of being a "Protection Licence" originally from "BSD", just as "BSD License" is normally considered a "License" originally from "BSD". In that case, BSD is generally recognised to be the Berkeley Software Distribution, which you also seem to recognise. (AFAIK, BSDI was bought by someone, including any trademarks and goodwill, but that is tangential.)
-- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know. Please http://remember.to/edit_messages on lists to be sure I read http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ gopher://g.towers.org.uk/ slef@jabber.at Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/