On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 7:54 AM Tom Callaway <tcallawa(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Did you ever get a follow-up answer from them?
Yes, I did. I'm terribly sorry for the delay. Other events overtook
me. Upstream's answer is:
Yes, of course. That is the reason for moving to the artistic license.
What I am licensing is not the mathematical data itself (which i
consider as unlicensable, as it is “truth”), but only the way how this
data is packed. Anyone may modify this data and distribute it, as long
as it does not claim to be the GAP transitive groups library.
(The modified library may claim to be compatible with the GAP library,
but then it is the modifiers duty to resolve this.)
That sounds to me like upstream is okay with the naming restriction
you suggested. I would be happier if upstream would simply strike the
confusing sentence from the license file, but I suppose this will have