suggest that any license which attempts to prohibit that which would otherwise be legal is non-free by definition.
I think this would actually bring debian closer to FSF's position: "If a contract-based license restricts the user in an unusual way that copyright-based licenses cannot, and which isn't mentioned here as legitimate, we will have to think about it, and we will probably decide it is non-free." (from the page "The Free Software Definition" /philosophy/free-sw.html on GNU mirrors).
IIRC, if it requires a contract to be formed, there needs to be some sort of consideration from licensee to licensor in exchange for the permissions. Could that consideration arguably be called a fee and therefore this test would be a simple illustration of DFSG 1?
We should come up with a name for this test. Maybe the "Autocrat Test" or the "Dictator Test"? The copyright (or patent, or trademark) holderdoes not get to make up his or her own laws?
I have been referring to these things as "enforcement-by-copyright". Maybe it's the "Private Laws Test"?
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and not of any group I know
http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing
"To be English is not to be baneful / To be standing by
the flag not feeling shameful / Racist or partial..."
(Morrissey)