Yes. Their answer makes it clear they do not intend to restrict modification in a way that would make it non free.
On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 8:53 PM Jerry James <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> 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
> to do.
Are we okay to proceed with the transgrp review? Thank you,