Scenario: I want to create a new license (say, the "Dramatic License"). It's identical to the Artistic License 2.0 in every way except that Section 4b is omitted (with the intended result of always requiring the Modified Version to be made available to at least myself under the Original License, or to the general public under the Original License or some other copyleft free software license), and Section 4c is renumbered to Section 4b to fill in the gaping void left behind.

However, the Artistic License 2.0 contains this bit of legalese right off the bat:

"Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed."

It seems the GNU General Public License and various derivatives include this exact wording as well, but there are indeed licenses derived from the GNU GPL (including the Affero General Public License). The GNU GPL FAQ also seems to authorize modified versions of the GPL despite that wording, provided that the derivative license removes any reference to GNU or the FSF (in order to avoid the appearance of the new license being endorsed by the FSF) and that the new license must be approved by the FSF in order to use the Preamble at all.

Thus, this all leaves me with some questions:

• Would it be legally permissible to create a new license under a different name that is identical to the Artistic License 2.0 (aside from the removed section as described above)? Or am I totally out of luck here?
• Would it be legally permissible to use Sections 4a and 4c from the Artistic License 2.0 as the basis for a similar clause or clauses in an entirely different license (not identical to the Artistic License 2.0)? Or am I again totally out of luck here?

Basically, the Artistic License 2.0 seems to be absolutely perfect for my needs (at least when I need copyleft at all) with the sole exception of Section 4b (in the rare situation where I actually want copyleft, I really don't care whether or not some fork is "compatible" with my version or is named differently; I care whether or not the fork is free software or at the very least available to me under the Original License). Being able to use the same exact licensing terms as the AL2.0 sans that specific section would be absolutely ideal. Barring that, being able to write a new license from scratch while incorporating AL2.0 Sections 4a and 4c (whether paraphrased or verbatim) would be acceptable.