I think it is too wordy though, and for 99% of projects, the MIT vs BSD vs Apache difference is not terribly important, so why weight your project down with a crazy big license?
I prefer MIT. It's a little clearer to me, and is claimed to be GNU GPL compatible.
MIT has a killer failing: it was developed prior to the onset of software patents, and so has no patent release. This dooms it to being appropriate for only trivial projects. It doesn't matter if you think there's nothing patentable in your code: others don't know that. If you want people to use your code in this day and age, a patent release is critically important.
Use Apache. Why be concerned about license length? Include the license once and then refer to it in your source copies. No big deal.
Where I work contracts and grants prefers that we use BSD because they (as I understand it) think apache's patent grants are too broad.
Contracts and grants prefers we use Education Community License over apache http://www.educause.edu/wiki/Educational+Community+License
But if you're building something like node.js, nginx, or Lucene, choosing MIT/BSD is likely a terrible idea. Apache gives huge protections for unforeseen scenarios: automatic property rights assignment for contributions, poison-pill–like protections against patent suits, &c.
I highly recommend this book on Proprietary Information and Open Source: http://www.amazon.com/Intellectual-Property-Open-Source-Prot...
--
Aside — Sean, I took your CS101 class in '07. Crazy running into you randomly here ;)
The job would have be trivial enough to make it clear to everyone concerned that there was nothing patentable in it, I suppose.
As to GPL compatibility, I've seen this play out with the AFL too (I use the AFL a lot). My take on it is: GPL incompatibility with well-designed, modern licenses like the AFL and Apache is not their fault. It's the fault of the FSF for producing licenses with outstanding flaws. As someone firmly in the BSD camp, I'm not too concerned about the FSF's foibles.
+100. I love this attitude.
Please, tell that to Linux users. Now, compare the vibrant ecosystem around Linux with the vibrant ecosystem around FreeBSD and try to think why it happens and what's the difference between them.
This site gives a good overview: http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/apache2.xml
IMO, you may just as well use GPLv3, ALv2 source is almost as risky in commercial products.
"Mixing copyright law with patent law", whatever that means, has nothing to do with risk in commercial products. Apache is very well regarded as a BSD-style license in the commercial environment.