Lutz Horn wrote:
That's a good point. As far as I can see a major point for the FSF to judge a license as compatible with the GNU GPL or even as a non free license is the amount of trouble someone has to take in distributing a (modified) version of the software. If this amount of trouble is too big,
From my understanding it's not a question of big or tiny trouble. Not even the smallest obligation that has to be fulfilled for distributing modified and unmodified versions of the software is acceptable for being GPL-compatible (or even calling it "GPL"), apart from the obligation to stick to the GPL.
Thanks,