Can you alter the MIT license?

[Scott Johnston]

>> Now I have a new interpretation to ponder which is probably compatible with
>> the previous paragraph. That the MIT license *can* be changed in derivative
>> works by adding terms, as long as those terms do not require actions or
>> grant permissions banned by the original.  But what does this really mean
>> for MIT style licenses?  Can I add *any* term except 1) a ban on replicating
>> the permission notice in the documentation, and 2) a requirement that you
>> must include the names of copyright holders in all advertisements?
>
>Lots of people have done it before you and some of them, like Bill Joy,
>got filthy rich from it, nobody stopped them, and if any objections were
>raised they were ethical ones, not legal ones.
>

But all of these have been with binary distributions, have they not?  Is
there a case of someone adding an extra term to the MIT license (either
copyleft or proprietary, pick your form of control), and redistributing all
the source?

By the way, does the Apple open source license conform to the underlying BSD
requirements?  If I pick up Darwin is it clear I have to abide by (modified)
BSD as well?

Scott