Whereas everyone understands the Windows 7 license, which is why that is so widely used.
You've hit the nail right on the head there.
Anyway, I only made these changes July 2014. I saw only a slight concern from the Fedora people, then haven't heard anything about it. (Actually they were more concerned with the sub-licensed MPI library whose README says that it is in the public domain, yet there are some stray copyright notices with "all rights reserved" text in the files.)
You're not writing Windows 7, is the thing, and there's other common tools in the area of text parsing/mangling which have much more standard licenses.
To frame things more constructively, what imagined situation are you most concerned about?
"Here I am, using this program five years from now when, due to the licensing, <bad thing> happens."
What is <bad thing>?
For example, is it something you would suddenly like to do with the program, but are not permitted (yet would be if it used the original BSD license verbatim?)
The <bad thing> is this: "I've been using this nice program for a while now and started redistributing it, and now my organization/customers/whoever are giving me grief due to its weirdly modified BSD-ish license." Grief is grief, even if those people are inflicting it for an unsubstantiated reason (fear of the unknown).
Indeed. I'm an occasional packager for a small Linux distro, and there's a reasonable chance this counts as a non-free license with your modifications... which in this distro means we couldn't distribute binary packages and installing it from source would have to have a user manually enable non-free packages.
You've hit the nail right on the head there.
Anyway, I only made these changes July 2014. I saw only a slight concern from the Fedora people, then haven't heard anything about it. (Actually they were more concerned with the sub-licensed MPI library whose README says that it is in the public domain, yet there are some stray copyright notices with "all rights reserved" text in the files.)