Care to elaborate? That is an extremely broad claim. The GPL has been upheld a number of times. The MIT/BSD licences are about as simple and solid as they get.
> I think part of the goal here was to start with something extremely short-form.
Yes, but to your point above, courts rarely appreciate schizophrenic agreements which say one thing in one place and an entirely different thing elsewhere.
How is X Open Source + Common Clause any different than the Redis^e + X hosting/brand piggybacking others have been doing to RedisLabs?
Like several people here, I'd really appreciate clarification on this.
The average OSS license doesn't apply to some use cases, but in every case I know that's intentional; they're uses that don't uphold the four freedoms. There are a handful of outstanding issues like Google's allergy to AGPL, but the GPL and MIT licenses are well-tested and accepted. I've regularly used them personally and professionally without any confusion or trouble at all.
If there's a flaw or weakness in these licenses, people are obviously eager to hear about it. If they simply don't support restricting downstream rights, that's by design and I think "far from robust" is a thoroughly unfair way of framing the situation.
In fact, I'd love to see a v2 standalone license. One of the design constraints was size and readability. I think part of the goal here was to start with something extremely short-form.
More broadly, the average OSS license is far from robust.