How does that invalidate wolftaur claim that solidcoin as a whole is now proprietary? Because without coinhunters changes it would no longer be solidcoin.
It doesn't, it is proprietary but not in violation of any license it crossed.
Oracle allows the use of Berkeley DB under BSD-ish terms for software which is free open source. SolidCoin is _not_ free open source.
Free does not mean "costs no money", free means I can actually use the source. CoinHunter is not providing source code for use, he is providing source code for compilation only.
The Free in FOSS means free as in freedom, not free as in free beer. Oracle's extension of a no-cost Berkeley DB license applies only to two types of software:
1. The software is not distributed.
2. The software is under an FOSS license, which means licenses in which you have the right to _USE_ the source code: including editing it. Not simply being able to DOWNLOAD it so you can compile it for a system a prebuilt binary isn't available for.
When CoinHunter prohibited changes without his authorization, it stopped being open-source. It became proprietary software that the source code is available for as an installation method.
Nice of you to just skip over my earlier post where I quote from the actual text of the license. Now you use Stallman's sophomoric and idiotic free as in speech, free as in freedom and free as in beer language. Here is the interesting thing, the GPL is not free. It's use of the term is doublespeak and a lie, and the sophomoric attempts at the free is in beer hand waving don't change that.
Anyway, if you read my original post or the license itself, you will see it is not talking about FOSS, heck remember BSD 4.4 which had BDB 1.8. The formation of Sleepycat was in response to Netscape's request for commercial support. It all predates ers's writings that set about the OSI and all the definitions you are trying to shoehorn into the license. They are not part of this license. The OSI movement itself was opposed to by Stallman actually. The license says just what I wrote in the post you conveniently ignored. It does not say what you seem to keep implying it does.
Now SC is in violation current, though not at all for the reasons that you say. All he needs to do to come back into compliance is add a link to get the source code to his about window text. He can actually keep his ridiculous permissions clause, and still meet the Sleepycat license.