What you're asking for offers no safeguards against Stardock changing its mind either. As the owner of the trademark, Stardock would have the authority to revoke any license at near will. Unless UQM wants to take the fight to court, UQM is SOL under either situation. The main difference between the two situations is that Stardock's declaration of UQM not infringing upon its trademark is compatible with trademark law. Your request to apply a copyright standard to what is a trademark matter falls outside the bounds of what trademark law sets as a standard, which makes its legal worth questionable at best.
If UQM did possess a trademark and was willing to extend such terms, it would probably be against the advice of any IP lawyer and to the ultimate detriment of the project. You still don't seem to grasp that the trademark implies association, and therefore approval, by the trademark holders, of however the trademark is used. Copyright grants no oversight over that usage beyond the terms of distribution and redistribution. It does not provide editorial oversight, which is the power that a trademark grants. And surrendering that editorial oversight is tantamount to surrendering control of the trademark, since the right to exercise that oversight is the means by which a trademark holder controls association.
I, like Brad, am not an IP lawyer. However, also like Brad, I've had to deal with trademarks and copyright in the past due to my work. Including in using that trademark to shut down third parties that tried to create an unauthorized association with the trademark owners. I've also had to deal with a lot of people who were far too blasse about the responsibilities that come with being a trademark holder without recognizing why trademark holders do the things they do, and whom confuse trademarks with copyrights. They are often used in conjunction with each other, but they protect different things.