>It matters to a lot of the people taking care of open source software.
Surely they can read and understand a one-page licence written in plain English? Much more easily than the GPL which just waffles on and on page after page...
>The people who could compile your stuff for more platforms, adopt it to SDL or wxWidgets, package it for various Linux distributions (so users can see it listed and install it with a single mouse click), add improvements to it...
Nothing in the licence prevents them from doing any of these four things.
>You keep worrying that some very mean person might insist on sending out the sources via snail mail only ("for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution") or try to get rich with it. Neither is going to happen.
Well, you don't know that for sure. And what is the harm of having such clauses? It's a bit like saying "probably no one will exploit this bug, so we will just leave the vulnerability in the code." Plus, the licence I have come up with is not really intended to be restricted to just my own stuff, I would be happy to see that licence used more widely, including by programmers whose software may have more commercial appeal. If that licence has gaping holes in it allowing selling, adding of spyware, etc. then it's unlikely anyone else would want to use it.