Further down he writes the rationale is to prevent fragmentation of the community; from what I have seen it prevents developers who otherwise might from joining the community.

It's not like e.g. Python or Haskell have a fragmentation problem despite permissible licenses. Scheme has fragmentation problems but that seems to be a symptom of simple implementation and lack of a common set of libraries.

I think Shen is interesting, but if I used it I'd only be mining it for ideas to apply in other languages. It would make far more sense to me if he allowed derivatives iff they did not use the name.

I don't disagree with the goal of preventing fragmentation, and I'd even be willing to play the flag game (i.e. have my version focus on SMP functionality in both senses of the latter, while observing the official spec with a different flag).

It's the long winded, says the same things at least 5 (!) different times and ways, and therefore subject to many interpretations license, which is then subject to whims of the author or an external board (compare to Java, where in theory passing a suite of tests allows you to offer a version of Java(TM)).

I'm not going to invest serious effort in something that might get killed simply for political reasons including different interpretations of the license; even if I trusted the good will of everyone involved, sooner or later the players will change.